THE EFFECTS OF EYE BEHAVIOR

ON HUMAN COMMUNICATION

[CHAPTER10]

Throughout history, we have been preoccupied with the eye and its effects on

human behavior. Do you recall the last time you heard or read one of these

phrases?

“It was an icy stare.”

“He’s got shifty eyes.”

“Did you see the gleam in his eye?”

“We’re seeing eye to eye now.”

“His eyes shot daggers across the room.”

“She could kill with a glance.”

It is common to associate various eye movements with a wide range of human

emotions or traits: downward glances are associated with modesty; wide eyes with

frankness, wonder, naivete, or terror; generally immobile facial muscles and a

rather constant stare with coldness; and eyes rolled upward with fatigue or to sug-

gest that another’s behavior is a bit weird.

In addition, our society has established a number of eye-related norms: We

must not look too long at strangers in public places; we must not make eye contact

for too long; and we are not supposed to look at various parts of the body except

under certain conditions, to name a few.

Fascination with eyes has led to the exploration of almost every conceivable

feature of the eyes and the areas surrounding them. We look at eye size, color,

position, eyebrows, and wrinkles around the eyes. Eye rings are found mainly in

other animals, but some speculate that human eyebrows are residual “rings,”to

He speaketh not; and yet there lies a conversation in his eyes.

—Henry Wadsworth Longfellow

295

Copyright 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has

deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

be raised during surprise or fear and lowered for focus during threat and anger.

Eye “patches”are the colored eyelids sometimes seen in primates, but these are

not a part of the natural human communicative repertoire, although women often

use eyeliner and eye shadow to achieve a similar effect. Another nonhuman feature

that has received scholarly attention is “eyespots,”eye-shaped images located on

various parts of some animals’bodies. These can be seen on peacock feathers, but-

terflies, and certain fish.

Researchers have examined the degree to which eyes open or close as a reflection

of various emotional states. Some feel that excessive blinking may be associated with

various stages of anxiety—as if attempting to cut off reality. Psychiatrists report that

some patients blink up to 100 times per minute; normal blinking, needed to lubricate

and protect the eyeball, occurs about 6 to 10 times per minute in adults. Some evi-

dence shows that when a person is attentive to objects in the environment, or deep

in concentrated thought, the blinking rate decreases.

Further diversity in the significance of the eyes comes from research on eye

color. Blue eyes are a genetically based marker for inhibition and shyness, and peo-

ple perceive greater dominance in men with brown eyes than blue eyes (Kleisner,

Ko!

cnar, Rubešová, & Flegr, 2010; Rosenberg & Kagan, 1987). Some eye-related

behaviors occur without much conscious awareness, such as the crinkles around

the eyes when a person is feeling genuine enjoyment, but others are used very delib-

erately. An example of the latter is the “eye flash,”in which the eyelids are briefly

opened without the accompanying involvement of the eyebrows, for less than a sec-

ond, used to emphasize particular words, usually adjectives (Walker & Trimboli,

1983). The eyebrow flash is yet another, but quite different gesture, discussed in

depth in Chapter 2.

Of the many eye-related topics of inquiry, this chapter focuses on two: The

first is known by terms such as eye contact,mutual glances,visual interaction,

gazing,orline of regard. The second concerns pupil dilation and constriction

under various social conditions.

GAZE AND MUTUAL GAZE

We begin by looking at the terminology we will be using: gaze and mutual gaze

(Argyle & Cook, 1976; Kleinke, 1986; Rutter, 1984). Gaze refers to an individual

looking at another person; mutual gaze refers to a situation in which two interac-

tants are looking at each other, usually in the region of the face (see Figure 10-1).

Eye contact—that is, looking specifically in each other’s eyes—does not seem to be

reliably distinguished by receivers or observers from gazing at the area surrounding

the eyes (von Cranach & Ellgring, 1973). In fact, much of what is considered

“looking someone in the eye”is a series of rapid, repeated scans of several parts

of the face. Indeed, if someone did look fixedly without moving the eyes, the

impression would be one of vacant staring. Gaze and mutual gazing can be reliably

assessed by observers. At a distance of 3 meters, face-directed gazing can be distin-

guished, and shifting the direction of the gaze by 1 centimeter can reliably be

detected from a distance of 1 meter. Furthermore, people tend to be accurate in

reporting the extent to which they gazed at someone during an interaction (Hall,

Murphy, & Schmid Mast, 2007).

296 PART IV THE COMMUNICATORS’BEHAVIOR

Copyright 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has

deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

We know that we do not look at another person the entire time we are talk-

ing to him or her, nor do we avert our gaze 100 percent of the time. What are

considered normal gazing patterns? Obviously, the answer varies according to

the background and personalities of the participants, the topic, the other person’s

gazing patterns, objects of mutual interest in the environment, and so on. The

speaker’s fluency also affects gazing patterns. During fluent speech, speakers tend

to look at listeners much more than during hesitant speech. We will discuss some

of these factors in more detail later in this chapter. Keeping such qualifications in

mind, we can get a general idea of normal gazing patterns from research on

focused interaction between two people (e.g., Argyle & Ingham, 1972). Gener-

ally, people gaze about half the time; there are notable individual differences in

the amount of other-directed gaze; and people gaze more while listening than

while talking.

FUNCTIONS OF GAZING

Kendon (1967) identified four functions of gazing: (1) regulatory—responses may

be demanded or suppressed by looking; (2) monitoring—people may look at their

partner to indicate the conclusions of thought units and to check their partner’s

attentiveness and reactions; (3) cognitive—people tend to look away when having

difficulty processing information or deciding what to say; and (4) expressive—the

degree and nature of involvement or emotional arousal may be revealed through

looking.

FIGURE 10-1

Mutual gaze.

Monkey Business Images/Shutterstock.com

CHAPTER 10 THE EFFECTS OF EYE BEHAVIOR ON HUMAN COMMUNICATION 297

Copyright 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has

deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

Our discussion follows a similar pattern, as gazing has been shown to serve

several important functions:

1. Regulating the flow of communication

2. Monitoring feedback

3. Reflecting cognitive activity

4. Expressing emotions

5. Communicating the nature of the interpersonal relationship

These functions do not operate independently; that is, visual behavior not only

sends information, it is also one of the primary methods for collecting it. Looking

at the other person as you finish an utterance may not only tell the other that it is

his or her turn to speak, it is also an occasion for you to see how he or she is react-

ing to what you have said.

REGULATING THE FLOW OF COMMUNICATION

Visual contact occurs when we want to signal that the communication channel is

open. In some instances, eye gaze establishes a virtual obligation to interact. When

you seek visual contact with your server at a restaurant, you are essentially indicat-

ing that the communication channel is open and that you want to say something to

him or her. You may recall instances when an instructor asked the class a question,

and you were sure you did not know the answer. Establishing eye contact with the

instructor was the last thing you wanted to do. Police use this knowledge to iden-

tify drivers who may be engaged in illegal activity because they consider drivers

who avoid eye contact to be suspicious. People routinely use gaze avoidance to pre-

vent unwanted social interactions. As long as we can avoid eye gaze in a seemingly

natural way, it is much easier to avoid interaction.

When passing unknown others in a public place, we typically acknowledge

them with a brief glance, but this initial glance is followed by the avoidance of

gaze unless further contact is desired, or unless the other person signals a desire

for further contact with us by gazing back or by smiling. However, the time it

takes us to look away from another person might vary as a function of a number

of factors, such as the person’s attractiveness and emotional state. Belopolsky,

Devue, and Theeuwes (2011) found that it took participants longer to visually dis-

engage from an angry face than a face with a neutral or happy expression.

A length of gaze that exceeds this acknowledgment glance is likely to signal a

desire to initiate a conversation (Cary, 1978), and violation of this civil inattention

norm—a term coined by Goffman (1963)—can produce negative feelings in the

recipients (Zuckerman, Miserandino, & Bernieri, 1983). When you want to dis-

avow social contact, your eye gaze will likely diminish. Thus, we see mutual gazing

in greeting sequences and greatly diminished gazing when we wish to bring an

encounter to an end.

Within a conversation, gazing at the other can command a nonverbal, as well

as verbal, response. Because speakers gaze less than listeners, it is the speaker’s gaz-

ing that determines moments of mutual looking. During these moments, it is highly

likely that the listener will respond with a listener response, also called a back-

channel response, that signifies attention (Bavelas, Coates, & Johnson, 2002).

298 PART IV THE COMMUNICATORS’BEHAVIOR

Copyright 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has

deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

These responses can include smiles and other facial expressions, sounds such as

“mm-hmm,”and head nods. Thus, the speaker’s behavior is an important determi-

nant of the timing of these responses. However, gazing is not the only determinant:

Listener responses also occur when people do not see each other, as when talking

on a cell phone or telephone. In these situations, people are likely to increase their

level of verbal back-channel responses, such as “uh-huh,”as a means of communi-

cating their attention to the speaker (Boyle, Anderson, & Newlands, 1994).

In addition to opening and closing the channel of communication and com-

manding responses from the other, eye behavior also regulates the flow of commu-

nication by providing turn-taking signals. Speakers generally look less often than

listeners. But speakers do seem to glance during grammatical breaks, at the end of

a thought unit or idea, and at the end of the utterance. Although glances at these

junctures can signal the other person to assume the speaking role, we also use

these glances to obtain feedback, to see how we are being received, and to see if

the other will let us continue. This feedback function is addressed in the next sec-

tion. The speaker–listener pattern is often choreographed as follows: As the speaker

comes to the end of an utterance or thought unit, eye gaze toward the listener will

continue as the listener assumes the speaking role; the listener will maintain gaze

until the speaking role is assumed, when he or she will look away.

Research on naturally emerging and appointed leaders in three-person male

groups has found that the leader controls the flow of conversation using this cue

pattern: The leader shows an increased tendency to engage in prolonged gaze at

someone when he is done with a speaking turn, as if inviting, or possibly instruct-

ing, that person to take the floor. Thus, male leaders do not only keep the floor for

themselves more than others (Schmid Mast, 2002), they also orchestrate who gets

the floor and when (Kalma, 1992).

A speaker’s gaze at the completion of an utterance may help signal the yielding

of a speaking turn, but listener-directed gazes do not always accompany the

smooth exchange of speaking turns (Beattie, 1978; Rutter, Stephenson, & White,

1978). For instance, even though the speaker glances at the listener when yielding

a speaking turn, the listener delays a response or fails to respond. Further, when a

speaker begins an anticipated lengthy response, he or she is likely to delay gazing at

the other beyond what would normally be expected. This pattern of adult gazing

and looking away during speech seems to have its roots in early childhood develop-

ment. Observations of the gazing patterns of 3- to 4-month-old infants and their

parents revealed temporal similarities between their looking-at and looking-away

sequence and the vocalizing and pausing sequences in adult conversations (Jaffe,

Stern, & Peery, 1973).

Finally, we can use our gaze to signal the presence of socially meaningful infor-

mation in the interaction environment to another person, such as a friend. If you

notice the sudden appearance of a stranger, a quick glance at him or her can cue

your friend to look that way. The mutual acknowledgment of the stranger might

prompt a change in the topic of discussion, especially if it is of a private, sensitive

nature. Or the communication might come to a close altogether if the possible

threat in the environment is sufficient to warrant evasive action. Your use of gaze

here should help your friend (or whomever you are talking with) more quickly

notice looked-at information in the environment than information located in other

CHAPTER 10 THE EFFECTS OF EYE BEHAVIOR ON HUMAN COMMUNICATION 299

Copyright 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has

deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

places (i.e., those areas that you are not gazing at), something referred to as the

gaze-cuing effect. The gaze-cuing effect has been observed not only in humans but

in a number of species, and is not limited to the assessment of environmental

threats (Brauer, Call, & Tomasello, 2005; Frischen, Bayliss, & Tipper, 2007).

It appears that the gaze-cuing effect can be influenced by characteristics of the

gazer, perceiver of the gaze, and contextual factors. For example, females show

quicker cue-gazing responses than do males, and more dominant-looking female

faces seem to elicit greater cue-gazing effects (in this case, being quicker to identify

a letter in the location looked at by the face that preceded it than by the face that

did not look in that direction) among female observers (Alwall, Johansson, &

Hansen, 2010; Jones, Main, Little, & DeBruine, 2011). Seeing two people look at—

but not away from—each other before they both look in one direction leads to the

gaze-cuing effect (Böckler, Knoblich, & Sebanz, 2011). Lastly, whether we look

where the gazer has looked may depend on the match between the gazer’sfacial

expression and what we are searching for in the environment. Kuhn and Tipples

(2011) found that participants who were looking for a threatening target were more

likely to follow the gaze of a fearful face than a happy one.

MONITORING FEEDBACK

When people seek feedback concerning the reactions of others, they gaze at the

other person. If the other person is looking back, it is usually interpreted as a sign

of attention to what is being said. Listener facial expressions and gazing suggest

not only attention but also whether the listener is interested in what is being said.

Being seen is a profound form of social acknowledgment, and its lack—the experi-

ence of having others “look right through you”—undermines a person’s very exis-

tence as a social being. The averted gaze of another can lead to feelings of being

ostracized (Wirth, Sacco, Hugenberg, & Williams, 2010). A child on a playground

who demands to be watched by his or her parent while doing feats on the jungle

gym is not simply asking for added safety or security. Far more importantly, the

parent’s gaze infuses meaning into the child’s actions. Without a witness, the

actions feel pointless or even unreal. People in low-status service occupations, such

as janitors and hotel maids, often feel that a lack of visual acknowledgment by the

people they serve is dehumanizing. On the other hand, under some circumstances

being seen—especially in the sense of being watched—can feel like a violation of

privacy and can be very uncomfortable, especially when one cannot look back at

the person watching.

Effective monitoring via gaze may have important practical consequences. In

studies of physician–patient interaction, those physicians who engaged in more

patient-directed gaze were more accurate at recognizing the patients’degree of

psychosocial distress (Bensing, Kerssens, & van der Pasch, 1995), and a relation

between engaging in more patient-directed gaze and obtaining more psychosocial

information from the patient has been reported by van Dulmen, Verhaak, and Bilo

(1997).

Monitoring others’reactions during group discussions is crucial to planning

responsive statements and maintaining group harmony and morale. Crosby,

Monin, and Richardson (2008) showed that when a white member of a group

300 PART IV THE COMMUNICATORS’BEHAVIOR

Copyright 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has

deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

made an offensive statement about blacks, visual attention was shifted to the black

member of the group, but only when listeners thought he could hear the offensive

remark. Presumably, group members wanted to know how the affected person

reacted before deciding how to respond themselves. Effective monitoring of group

members via gaze has been shown to be higher in women than men: Women

spread their gaze more evenly around a group than men do (Koch, Baehne, Kruse,

Zimmermann, & Zumbach, 2008).

REFLECTING COGNITIVE ACTIVITY

Both listeners and speakers have a tendency to avoid gazing at others when trying

to process difficult or complex ideas. This averted gaze, which may include closing

the eyes, reflects a shift in attention from external to internal matters, as well as an

effort to exclude or interrupt external stimulation, such as that inherent in the pro-

cessing of face-to-face social cues (Markson & Paterson, 2009). People avoid gaze

more on reflective questions than factual ones and on more difficult questions—

more difficult in factual content or in terms of the length of the temporal search

required, as in “Name a professor you currently have”versus “Name a professor

you had two semesters ago”(Glenberg, Schroeder, & Robertson, 1998). Further-

more, when participants were required to answer factual questions, either with their

eyes closed or while looking directly at the experimenter, performance was better in

the eyes-closed condition, thus demonstrating the functional utility of excluding

external stimulation while engaging in difficult cognitive activity. Gaze aversion also

benefits children on difficult cognitive tasks, largely by helping them manage the

cognitive demands (Doherty-Sneddon & Phelps, 2005; Glenberg, Schroeder, &

Robertson, 1998). The use of gaze aversion while answering challenging questions

appears to be something that can be taught to very young children, resulting in

superior performance (Phelps, Doherty-Sneddon, & Warnock, 2006).

The nature of cognitive activity can also influence leftward or rightward eye

movements. When a person moves his or her eyes in a particular direction, it is

thought to reflect activity in the opposite hemisphere of the brain: Left hemisphere

activity, often involving intellectual and linguistic tasks, is associated with right-

ward glances, whereas right hemisphere activity, often involving spatial or emo-

tional processing, is associated with leftward glances (Ehrlichman & Weinberger,

1978; Weisz & Adam, 1993; Wilbur & Roberts-Wilbur, 1985). Studies show that

electroencephalic activity increases in the hemisphere opposite the direction of the

eye movement, and such activity can actually be stimulated by the movements.

Individuals vary in their leftward or rightward eye-movement tendencies, with left

movers being more susceptible to hypnosis, less scientifically oriented, more

involved with feelings and inner experience, more creative, and more prone to psy-

chosomatic symptoms and the psychological defenses of repression and denial.

EXPRESSING EMOTIONS

A glance at the eye area can provide us with a good deal of information about the

emotion being expressed. In fact, greater attention to the eyes might account for

why some (women) are better than others (men) at reading emotion states on the

CHAPTER 10 THE EFFECTS OF EYE BEHAVIOR ON HUMAN COMMUNICATION 301

Copyright 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has

deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

face (Hall, Hutton, & Morgan, 2010). If we see tears near the eyes of a person, we

would likely conclude that he or she is emotionally moved, although without other

cues, we may not know whether the tears reflect grief, physical pain, frustration,

joy, anger, some complex blend of emotions, or feigned grief, as in crocodile tears

(i.e., tears that are not real expressions of grief). And, as we indicate later, cues such

as downcast or averted eyes are often associated with feelings of sadness, shame, or

embarrassment. The extensive studies of Paul Ekman and Wallace Friesen have

given us valuable insights into facial configurations for six common, basic emotions,

shown in the photographs here. The descriptions shown pertain to the brow and

eye area, and the eye photographs are from Ekman and Friesen’scollection.As

the photographs illustrate, it may be difficult to judge what emotion is being

expressed without being able to see the brows. Similarly, some expressions may be

ambiguous unless the entire face can be seen. In everyday life, of course, we encoun-

ter dynamic as opposed to static facial expressions involving the eyes and mouth

as well as facial blends in which the eyes tell one story, and other parts of the face

tell another.

SURPRISE Brows are raised so they are curved and high. Skin below the brow is

stretched. Eyelids are opened; the upper lid is raised, and the lower lid is drawn

down; and the white of the eye shows above the iris, and often below as well.

FEAR Brows are raised and drawn together. The upper eyelid is raised, exposing the

white of the eye, called the sclera, and the lower eyelid is tensed and drawn up.

DISGUST Disgust is shown primarily in the lower face and in the lower eyelids.

Lines show below the lower lid, and the lid is pushed up but not tense. The brow

is lowered, lowering the upper lid.

ANGER The brows are lowered and drawn together, and vertical lines appear

between them. The lower lid is tensed and may or may not be raised. The upper

lid is tensed and may or may not be lowered by the action of the brow. The eyes

have a hard stare and may have a bulging appearance.

Paul Ekman,

Ph.D.

Paul Ekman,

Ph.D.

Paul Ekman,

Ph.D.

Paul Ekman,

Ph.D.

302 PART IV THE COMMUNICATORS’BEHAVIOR

Copyright 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has

deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

HAPPINESS Happiness is shown primarily in the lower face and lower eyelids. The

lower eyelid shows wrinkles below it and may be raised but is not tense. Crow’s-

feet wrinkles go outward from the outer corners of the eyes.

SADNESS The inner corners of the eyebrows are drawn up. The skin below the eye-

brow is triangulated, with the inner corner up. The upper-eyelid inner corner is

raised.

The eye-tracking study of Eisenbarth and Alpers (2011) showed that participants

looked initially or relatively longer at different parts of the face when decoding specific

emotions; for instance, initial fixations to the eyes were more common with sad than

happy, angry, or fearful expressions, and longer fixations to the mouth were seen

with happy expressions. The authors interpreted this as evidence that we look at

those areas of the face that are most characteristic of each emotion state. But do the

eyes, for example, display emotion better or worse than other parts of the face?

Ekman, Friesen, and Tomkins (1971) demonstrated that the eyes were better than the

brows, forehead, or lower face for the accurate perception of fear but were less accu-

rate for anger and disgust. Baron-Cohen, Wheelwright, and Jolliffe (1997) tested uni-

versity students’accuracy at identifying 16 emotional states, posed by an actress, by

evaluating each area separately: the eye area, including brows; the mouth area; and

the whole face. The authors included “basic”emotions such as angry, afraid, and

happy, and “nonbasic”states such as admiring, flirtatious, arrogant, and thoughtful.

The eye region was not quite as accurately judged as the whole face for the basic

emotions but was indistinguishable for the nonbasic states (see Figure 10-2). Can you

identify the emotions posed by the person in this study? (Answers are at the end of the

chapter.) Both the eyes and the whole facewerejudgedmuchmoreaccuratelythan

the mouth. Consistent with the research by Ekman, Friesen, and Tomkins (1971),

accuracy for the mouth region, although not superior to the eye region, was similar

to that of the eye region for distinguishing disgust and anger and much lower than

the eye region for distinguishing fear.

Most research on recognizing facial expressions of emotion presents faces

with direct forward gaze. However, it has been shown that the direction in

which the eyes are gazing has an influence on judgments of emotion in the face

(Adams & Kleck, 2003, 2005). In one of the studies, a face shown with the eyes

gazing directly forward made viewers more likely to see approach-orientation

emotions, such as anger and joy, in the faces, but a face with an averted gaze

made them more likely to see avoidance-orientation emotions, such as fear and

Paul Ekman,

Ph.D.

Paul Ekman,

Ph.D.

CHAPTER 10 THE EFFECTS OF EYE BEHAVIOR ON HUMAN COMMUNICATION 303

Copyright 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has

deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

FIGURE 10-2

Can you judge the emotions in these eyes? (a) happy or surprised, (b) angry or afraid, (c) sad or

disgusted, (d) distressed or sad, (e) arrogant or guilty, (f) thoughtful or arrogant, (g) flirting or

happy, (h) guilty or arrogant. (See answers at end of chapter.)

Source: From Baron-Cohen S.; Wheelwright S.; Jolliffe A. T. Is There a “Language of the Eyes”?EvidencefromNormal

Adults, and Adults with Autism or Asperger Syndrome, Visual Cognition, Volume 4, Number 3, 1 September 1997,

pp. 311–331(21), reprinted by permission of the publisher (Taylor & Francis Group, http://www.informaworld.com).

c

a

d

b

304 PART IV THE COMMUNICATORS’BEHAVIOR

Copyright 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has

deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

sadness. In another study, identical facial blends of fear and anger were presented

to viewers with direct versus averted gaze; more anger was attributed to the face

that had direct gaze, and more fear was attributed to the face that had averted

gaze. Thus, when the expression was ambiguous, gaze direction influenced

emotional perception (see Figure 10-3).

FIGURE 10-2 (continued)

f

g

h

e

CHAPTER 10 THE EFFECTS OF EYE BEHAVIOR ON HUMAN COMMUNICATION 305

Copyright 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has

deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

COMMUNICATING THE NATURE OF THE INTERPERSONAL

RELATIONSHIP

The direct gaze of a live person is important to the initial stages of processing his

or her facial information, which obviously is relevant to the possibility of some

sort of relationship (Pönkänen, Alhoniemi, Leppänen, & Hietanen, 2011). Gazing

and mutual gazing are often indicative of the nature of the relationship between

two interactants. For instance, relationships characterized by different status or

dominance levels may be reflected in the eye patterns; one example was given

earlier—the way the leader in a group seems to pick the next speaker by gazing at

him or her. The gaze of observers also might reflect a sensitivity to status differ-

ences among people. Foulsham, Cheng, Tracy, Henrich, and Kingstone (2010)

found that participants watching a video of a decision-making group looked more

at the high-status than low-status individuals in the group.

Another indicator of status or dominance is the visual dominance ratio—the

percentage of time spent looking at another while speaking to him or her divided

by the percentage of time spent looking at him or her while he or she is speaking.

People with higher status or dominance gaze relatively more while speaking and

relatively less while listening, compared to people with lower status or dominance.

This has been observed in laboratory dyadic settings as well as in real-world work-

place settings involving groups of people (Koch, Baehne, Kruse, Zimmermann, &

Zumbach, 2010). Although subtle patterns such as these distinguish people with

FIGURE 10-3

The ambiguous fear–anger blend is judged differently depending on the direction of gaze.

Source: With permission from Reginald B. Adams from Adams, R. B., Jr., & Kleck, R. E. (2005). Effects of direct and

averted of direct and averted gaze on the perception of facially communicated emotion. Emotion,5,3–11.

306 PART IV THE COMMUNICATORS’BEHAVIOR

Copyright 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has

deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

higher and lower dominance, a simple measure of overall gazing does not, accord-

ing to numerous studies (as reviewed by Hall, Coats, & Smith LeBeau, 2005).

On the other hand, stereotypes about gazing and dominance indicate a belief in

such an association. When asked to imagine how much gazing people of high or

low dominance would display, in terms of either personality or rank in a work-

place, participants thought the higher dominant person would gaze more (Carney,

Hall, & Smith LeBeau, 2005). And across many studies, when shown video

excerpts of people gazing different amounts, viewers attributed higher dominance

to those who gazed more (Hall, Coats, & Smith LeBeau, 2005).

On the flip side of visual dominance is the notion of “visual egalitarianism”

(Koch, Baehne, Kruse, Zimmermann, & Zumbach, 2010). Here, equality among

members of a group might be revealed in gaze patterns that suggest all members

of the group are being looked at to relatively the same extent. Koch and colleagues

found that visual egalitarianism was greater in groups headed by a female team

leader than a male team leader.

Several studies testify that we gaze more at people and things perceived as

rewarding. Efran and Broughton (1966) found that males gazed more at other

males with whom they had engaged in a friendly conversation preceding an

experiment and with those who nodded and smiled during the person’s presen-

tation. Exline and Eldridge (1967) found that the same verbal communication

was decoded as being more favorable when associated with more gaze than

when presented with less gaze. Exline and Winters (1965) reported that people

avoided the eyes of an interviewer and disliked him after he had commented unfa-

vorably on their performance. Self-relevance influences responses to gaze, too.

Faces are considered more likable if the eyes are shown shifting toward the viewer

than if the eyes are shown shifting away (Mason, Tatkow, & Macrae, 2005).

Mehrabian (1972b) asked a group of people to imagine they liked a person

and to engage this person in conversation. Even in this role-playing situation,

increased gazing was associated with increased liking. Mutual liking, revealed in

the form of participants’rating of rapport, was similarly related to gazing when

interactants debated a controversial topic (Bernieri, Gillis, Davis, & Grahe, 1996).

Interestingly, when engaging in a more cooperative discussion, eye contact was not

related to rapport judgments.

Increased gazing is often considered in the context of a courtship relationship.

The maintenance of mutual gaze longer than otherwise expected is a primary way

of signaling desire for heightened intimacy. In movies, we can almost always pre-

dict when a first kiss is coming because the characters share an unusually long

mutual gaze. An increased amount of gaze can both signal a wish for more involve-

ment and be an indication that heightened involvement has occurred. In one study,

for example, single men (but not single women) showed more gazing toward an

attractive than unattractive opposite-sex interaction partner (Van Straaten, Holland,

Finkenauer, Hollenstein, & Engles, 2010). Several sources confirm an increase in gaz-

ing between two people who are seeking to develop a more intimate relationship.

Rubin’s (1970) analysis of engaged couples indicated more mutual gaze, and Kleinke,

Bustos, Meeker, and Staneski (1973) found that longer glances or reciprocated glances

were perceived as an indicator of a longer relationship. It may be that the amount of

gazing increases as relationships become more intimate, but it may also be true that

CHAPTER 10 THE EFFECTS OF EYE BEHAVIOR ON HUMAN COMMUNICATION 307

Copyright 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has

deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

after maintaining an intimate relationship for years, gazing returns to levels below

those observed during more intense stages of the relationship’s development.

Argyle and Dean (1965) proposed an intimacy equilibrium model to help

explain why and how much people gaze in an interpersonal interaction. This

model suggests that intimacy is a function of the amount of eye gazing, physical

proximity, intimacy of topic, and amount of smiling. Thus, gaze is part of a net-

work of other behaviors that have important relations to one another in a total sys-

tem reflective of the overall psychological intimacy in a given interaction. Clearly,

other variables might be inserted into the equation; for example, body orientation,

the form of address used, tone of voice, other facial expressions, and forward lean.

The central idea behind this proposal is that as one component of the model is

changed, one or more of the other components also will change in the opposite

direction, as a form of compensation to keep the overall intimacy or stimulation at

a constant, desired level. For example, if one person looks too much, the other may

look less, move farther away, smile less, talk less about intimate matters, and so on

to reestablish the initial desired level of intimacy. Also, when one person is forced

to increase the implied intimacy of a behavior—for example, by standing close to

another in a crowded elevator—the other will compensate by gazing less, talking

about impersonal topics, and so forth.

Cross-cultural research shows that in societies that emphasize a greater

amount of physical contact between mothers and infants, mutual gaze between

them is lower than in societies where the norms prescribe more physical auton-

omy and distance. Here again is evidence of a compensatory mechanism, whereby

the crucial psychological connection between mothers and infants is maintained

in different but equivalent ways. The same trade-off between physical contact

and mutual gaze has also been observed in chimpanzee mother–infant interac-

tions (Bard et al., 2005).

Although this compensatory model has received extensive support, there are

many occasions when, rather than counter or offset the other’s behavior, people

will reciprocate it; for example, gazing will elicit gazing, and smiling will elicit smil-

ing. This can be seen in personal interactions as well as between strangers, and

glancing at a passing stranger is likely to produce a glance in return (Patterson,

Webb, & Schwartz, 2002; Patterson et al., 2007).

Several scholars have proposed alternatives to the intimacy equilibrium model

(Cappella & Greene, 1982; Patterson, 1976) in an attempt to accommodate both

compensation and reciprocation. These theories argue that our tendency to

exchange the same behavior (i.e., to reciprocate) or to offset the other’s behavior

(i.e., to compensate) is a result of the type and amount of arousal we feel and

desire. A general rule suggests that we tend to reciprocate or match another’s non-

verbal behavior when the other’s behavior is perceived by us as congruent with our

own expectations and preferences, or when we want to initiate an upward or

downward spiral in intimacy. When our partner’s behavior is not congruent with

our expectations and preferences, we are more likely to enact compensatory or off-

setting behavior (see also Chapter 12).

When the relationship between the two communicators is characterized by neg-

ative attitudes, we might see a decrease in gazing and mutual gazing, but not

always. This is because gaze, like touch, can sometimes serve more to intensify or

308 PART IV THE COMMUNICATORS’BEHAVIOR

Copyright 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has

deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

highlight whatever feeling or intention is present at the moment than to communi-

cate a specific message. Also, gaze does not occur in isolation from other cues—a

threatening stare and a loving look may both be long, but the rest of the face is

likely to be doing quite different things.

To illustrate one of the preceding points, satisfied married couples in one study

tended to look at each other less than couples who were dissatisfied with their rela-

tionship, with this being particularly true when negative messages were exchanged

(Noller, 1980). Increased gazing served to emphasize the confrontational nature of

the relationship while simultaneously providing a way to monitor the other’s reac-

tions during critical moments. This is a good example of how the immediate con-

text can never be ignored when interpreting the meaning of nonverbal behavior.

A hostile or aggressive orientation may also trigger the use of staring to pro-

duce anxiety in others. A gaze of longer than 10 seconds is likely to induce irrita-

tion, if not outright discomfort, in many situations. In one study, drivers sped

away more quickly from an intersection when stared at by a pedestrian (Ellsworth,

Carlsmith, & Henson, 1972). Several studies confirm that mutual gaze is physio-

logically arousing. We can express our hostility toward another by visually and

verbally ignoring him or her, especially when the other person knows we are delib-

erately doing so. But we can insult another person by looking at that person too

much, that is, by not according him or her the public anonymity that each of us

requires at times. Sometimes you can elicit aggressive behavior from others just

because you happen to look too long at their behavior. Sometimes threats and

aggressive action can be elicited in zoo monkeys by human beings who stare at

them too long.

Thus, if we are looking for a unifying thread to link gazing patterns motivated

by positive and negative feelings toward the other, it would seem to be this: People

tend to look at those with whom they are interpersonally involved. Gazing moti-

vated by hostility or affection both suggest an interest and involvement in the inter-

personal relationship. We must rely on contextual information, and other verbal

and nonverbal cues, to decide whether to interpret extended gazing positively or

negatively.

CONDITIONS INFLUENCING GAZING PATTERNS

DISTANCE

As suggested by intimacy equilibrium theory, gazing and mutual gazing often

increase as the physical distance between two people grows. In this case, gazing

psychologically reduces the distance between communicators and allows for better

monitoring. Similarly, there may be less visual contact when the two parties feel

too close in terms of physical distance, especially if they are not well acquainted.

Reducing one’s gaze in this situation, then, increases the psychological distance.

Several studies by Aiello (1972, 1977) found that extending the conversational dis-

tances to as much as 10 feet produced a steady increase in gazing for men, but for

women, being more than 6 feet from their interactant brought a sharp decline in

their gazing. It is probable that because women prefer closer interaction distances

(see Chapter 5), they may find it difficult to define interactions at relatively great

CHAPTER 10 THE EFFECTS OF EYE BEHAVIOR ON HUMAN COMMUNICATION 309

Copyright 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has

deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

distances as normal and friendly, and they may react by ceasing their attempts to

maintain involvement.

PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS

We would think that when interacting with a person who is disabled or stigmatized

in some way, gaze would be less frequent. The evidence in support of this is mixed,

though, and may hinge on the nature of the disability or situational demands pres-

ent during the interaction. Bowers, Crawcour, Saltuklaroglu, and Kalinowski

(2010) noted that college-aged participants were more likely to look away from a

speaker’s eyes when he was stuttering as opposed to speaking fluently. Kleck

(1968), on the other hand, found that the amount of gazing between nondisabled

and disabled interactants did not differ significantly from interactions between

those considered nondisabled. Possible explanations are that in such situations, the

nondisabled person is seeking information that might suggest the proper mode of

behavior, or the disabled person is a novel stimulus that arouses curiosity. These

factors would counteract any tendency to avoid eye gaze. A subsequent study,

however, found that when a strong possibility arose that a nondisabled person

would have to engage a disabled person in conversation, gaze avoidance increased.

When conversation was not expected, people without disabilities tended to stare

more at people with disabilities than those without (Thompson, 1982).

PERSONAL CHARACTERISTICS AND PERSONALITY

There are definitely stereotypes about gaze and personality. Kleck and Nuessle

(1968) showed a film of people looking at their partners either 15 or 80 percent

of the time to observers, who were asked to select characteristics that typified the

interactants. Those who looked at their partner only 15 percent of the time were

labeled as cold, pessimistic, cautious, defensive, immature, evasive, submissive,

indifferent, and sensitive; those who looked 80 percent of the time were seen as

friendly, self-confident, natural, mature, and sincere. Napieralski, Brooks, and

Droney (1995) presented viewers with 1-minute videotaped interactions in which

the target person gazed for 5, 30, or 50 seconds at an interviewer. The less a person

gazed, the more state anxiety and trait anxiety were attributed to that person by

viewers.

In actual interaction, of course, gaze patterns reflect the message sender’s

mood, intentions, and situational factors. Nevertheless, some patterns have

emerged in the relations between gazing patterns and personality traits. Dependent

individuals seem to use eye behavior not only to communicate more positive atti-

tudes but also to elicit such attitudes when they are not forthcoming from others

(Exline & Messick, 1967). Dependent males directed more gaze toward a listener

who provided them with few, as opposed to many, social reinforcers, whereas

dominant males decreased their eye gaze with listeners who reinforced less.

Kalma (1993) distinguished between two personality styles relating to domi-

nance: sociable dominance and aggressive dominance. The sociably dominant per-

son agrees strongly with statements such as “I have no problem talking in front of

a group”and “No doubt I’ll make a good leader.”The aggressively dominant

310 PART IV THE COMMUNICATORS’BEHAVIOR

Copyright 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has

deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

person agrees strongly with statements such as “I quickly feel aggressive with peo-

ple”and “I find it important to get my way.”In an experimental setting, Kalma

observed people who varied on these dominance styles and found that the sociably

dominant person engaged in more mutual gaze, whereas the aggressively dominant

person engaged in more looking around; that is, they showed lack of interest in

others.

A particular kind of social dominance is sexual harassment. Male college stu-

dents’proclivity to sexually harass women was measured using a questionnaire

that asked how likely they would be to exploit a woman under varying hypotheti-

cal circumstances, such as rewarding her for sexual favors. Videotapes that were

surreptitiously made of the same men interacting at a later time with a subordinate

female revealed that, among other behaviors, the men more likely to harass

engaged in more direct eye contact with the woman (Murphy, Driscoll, & Kelly,

1999).

Self-esteem and self-confidence are associated with gazing patterns. A study of

attributions found that interviewees were rated by observers as having increasingly

lower self-esteem as their gazing decreased (Droney & Brooks, 1993). Variations in

gazing at another person during positive and negative feedback may indeed be

related to self-esteem. When receiving favorable feedback on their performance,

people with high self-esteem tended to gaze more, and negative feedback reduced

their gazing behavior. But the pattern was reversed for those with low self-esteem.

These people gazed more during feedback that criticized their performance than

during feedback that complimented it (Greene & Frandsen, 1979).

Intelligence is also a trait people display during social interactions. Evidence

shows that people who score higher on standard tests of cognitive ability, such as

an IQ test, engage in more interpersonal gaze and responsiveness, and that percei-

vers who watch these people on videotape can use these cues to accurately judge

intelligence levels (Murphy, Hall, & Colvin, 2003).

Other personality traits—as measured by the self-report of the gazers—have

been associated with more gazing. Such traits include extraversion, agreeableness,

and openness (Berry & Hansen, 2000; Mobbs, 1968), although some studies do

not find correlations between gaze and personality. For example, Dabbs, Evans,

Hopper, and Purvis (1980) did not find differences in the gazing behavior of high

self-monitors and low self-monitors,

1

and Gifford (1994) failed to find associations

between interpersonal gazing and trait measures of ambitiousness, gregariousness,

warmth, unassumingness, laziness, aloofness, coldness, and arrogance.

1

This is a personality variable that indicates the extent to which a person’s outer self—what he or she

shows to others—matches his or her inner self from situation to situation (Snyder, 1974). A high self-

monitor tends to look for clues in the situation as to how to behave and then presents himself or her-

self (the outer self) in a manner that is consistent with those expectations. Thus, in some situations, we

might see an outer self that is different from the person’s true inner self. For example, even though a

high self-monitor might not be particularly moved by an issue, he or she may act as if it is important

to him or her if others in the situation are treating it as such. The outer self that you see from a low

self-monitor, on the other hand, is more likely to be consistent from situation to situation because it

tends to reflect his or her inner self.

CHAPTER 10 THE EFFECTS OF EYE BEHAVIOR ON HUMAN COMMUNICATION 311

Copyright 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has

deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

Shyness is related to gazing behavior, but this correlation can depend on

whether the shy person is of a sociable or unsociable type. In a laboratory experi-

ment, Cheek and Buss (1981) classified college students on both a shyness scale

and a sociability scale and then observed them in a get-acquainted session.

Although shy individuals engaged in less gazing overall, and in more self-touching

and less talking, this effect was mainly present if the person was both shy (e.g., “I

am socially somewhat awkward”;“I feel inhibited in social situations”)and socia-

ble (e.g., “I like to be with people”;“I prefer working with others rather than

alone”). Thus, the behavioral deficits associated with shyness appear mainly in shy

people who crave social interaction; shy people who would just as soon be left

alone behaved much like people who were not shy in terms of their gazing.

Social anxiety, another related concept, is also associated with less gazing. In

one study, women who were high in social anxiety avoided eye contact with male

avatars that appeared farther away and were staring at them in a virtual reality

experimental setup (Wieser, Pauli, Grosseibl, Molzow, & Mühlberger, 2010). In

another study, in which socially anxious people were asked to present a viewpoint

to two confederates, the socially anxious ones were especially likely to reduce gaze

toward a confederate with opposing views compared to one with agreeing views

(Farabee, Holcom, Ramsey, & Cole, 1993). In an experiment in which participants

had choices of which face to look at on a computer screen, Mansell, Clark, Ehlers,

and Chen (1999) found that socially anxious people whose anxiety was heightened

by being told they would be giving a public talk avoided faces that showed emo-

tional expressions, preferring to give their visual attention to neutral-expression

faces. Under such circumstances, the socially anxious person may have an espe-

cially strong need to avoid the arousal engendered by emotional faces, which in

turn may be related to a history of finding emotionally charged social interactions

to be aversive. Highly anxious individuals also avert their eyes sooner from an

extended facial display of anger compared to less anxious individuals (Rohner,

2002). Of importance, not all studies have found greater gaze avoidance among

socially anxious individuals (Wieser & Pauli, 2009). When negative facial expres-

sions are very intense, more trait-anxious individuals actually look at them more

(Mogg, Garner, & Bradley, 2007).

As we mentioned earlier, gaze cuing refers to the automatic tendency to look in

the direction of someone else’s gaze. This effect is especially pronounced when the

target person’s face looks fearful. When viewers saw a fearful face with eyes

averted, as though the target person was looking at something frightening in the

environment, their own gaze shifted in that direction more than was the case when

the averted eyes were shown on a happy face (Putnam, Hermans, & van Honk,

2006). Furthermore, this effect is especially notable for viewers who are high on

trait anxiety: Highly anxious individuals are especially quick to use gaze direction

as a cue when the gazer has a fearful facial expression, suggesting that anxiety

makes a person especially visually attuned and responsive to evidence of threat in

their environment (Fox, Mathews, Calder, & Yiend, 2007; Mathews, Fox, Yield, &

Calder, 2003; Putnam, Hermans, & van Honk, 2006).

Finally, there are gender differences related to gaze avoidance and the use of

gaze. Larsen and Shackelford (1996) found that gaze-avoidant females (but not

males) were viewed negatively in terms of their social characteristics (e.g.,

312 PART IV THE COMMUNICATORS’BEHAVIOR

Copyright 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has

deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

disagreeable, unattractive). As shown in many studies, females look at others dur-

ing interaction more than males do, and such differences have been observed in

infancy and early childhood as well as in adulthood (Hall, 1984; Leeb & Rejskind,

2004). In addition, women are gazed at more than men are by others in an interac-

tion. (Sex differences are discussed further in Chapter 12.)

PSYCHOPATHOLOGY

A number of research studies find special gazing patterns, usually less gaze, in some

psychopathological conditions. For example, individuals with bipolar manic disor-

der showed more gaze avoidance than controls in a virtual-reality-based social

interaction (Kim et al., 2009). Depressed patients are characterized by nonspecific

gaze patterns and looking-down behaviors that revert to more normal patterns

with clinical improvement (Schelde & Hertz, 1994). Mothers with depressive

symptoms spend less time gazing at their infants, and their infants respond by

averting gaze more than control infants (Field, 1995). Paranoid schizophrenic

patients show a deficit in judging the gaze direction of others, which is consistent

with everyday conceptions of paranoia: Paranoid individuals are more likely than

comparison subjects to perceive another as looking at them, when the person is

actually looking away (Rosse, Kendrick, Wyatt, Isaac, & Deutsch, 1994).

A new term, autism spectrum disorder (ASD), has been used to represent the

nature of autistic symptoms ranging from severe (childhood disintegrative disorder)

to mild (Asperger’s syndrome), with classic autism being somewhere in between the

two extremes. Of importance, deficits in either attention to or the processing of

social information, such as eye and facial cues, may be present in each case but

not necessarily to the same extent.

Clinicians and researchers cite gaze aversion, among other social interaction

deficits, as a characteristic of their autistic patients (Adrien et al., 1993; Hutt &

Ounsted, 1966; Walters, Barrett, & Feinstein, 1990). Autistic individuals also suf-

fer deficits in the ability to detect the direction of another’s gaze (Senju, Yaguchi,

Tojo, & Hasegawa, 2003), to monitor a speaker’s gaze direction, and to direct

someone else’s gaze via the pointing gesture (Baron-Cohen, Wheelwright, &

Jolliffe, 1997). Baron-Cohen, Wheelwright, Hill, Raste, and Plumb (2001) reported

that individuals with autism or Asperger’s syndrome were less accurate overall than

normally functioning participants in judging emotions from the eye region of the

face. And Baron-Cohen, Wheelwright, and Jolliffe (1997) also found that the

patients were especially impaired for nonbasic—that is, more complex—expres-

sions, and when the eye region alone was being judged as opposed to the full face.

(See Figure 10-4 for the eye expressions used in this study.) Gaze measurement con-

firmed that individuals with autism fail to use information from the eye region

when making emotion judgments (Spezio, Adolphs, Hurley, & Piven, 2007), a def-

icit that directly impacts their ability to distinguish genuine from posed smiles, for

which attention to the eye region is necessary (Boraston, Corden, Miles, Skuse, &

Blakemore, 2008).

One theory to account for these deficits holds that individuals with autism find

direct gaze to be overwhelmingly arousing, and they avoid it for that reason.

Indeed, Kliemann, Dziobek, Hatri, Steimke, and Heekeren (2010) found that

CHAPTER 10 THE EFFECTS OF EYE BEHAVIOR ON HUMAN COMMUNICATION 313

Copyright 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has

deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

children diagnosed with ASD were more likely than control children to move their

eyes away from the eyes of facial stimuli. Using an experimental method that var-

ied the direction of a poser’s gaze (looking at or away from the camera), while

zooming the image in larger to suggest an approaching person, Kylliäinen and

Hietanen (2006) found that autistic children’s skin conductance (a measure of

physiological arousal) was greater in the direct gaze compared to averted gaze con-

dition, but for control children, there was no difference. Thus, the hypothesis that

gaze is aversively arousing for autistic children was supported.

Another possibility is that there is a breakdown in the autistic person’s ability

to synchronize an interaction by reciprocating another person’s direct gaze. Chen

and Yoon (2011) observed that individuals who reported more autism-associated

traits did not show a greater tendency to look at eyes staring at them versus away

from them, whereas those with fewer traits did.

Efforts are underway to improve the socioemotional skills of children who suf-

fer from ASD. FaceSay is a computer program that allows these children to practice

attending to eye gaze and recognizing faces and emotions with avatar assistants,

with some positive results being reported (Hopkins et al., 2011).

Another promising, and likely related, new avenue of insight involves the role

of the neuropeptide oxytocin in the ability of humans, both those with and without

psychopathology, to develop social attachments and to be sensitive and responsive

socially. Especially relevant to the present chapter is the study of Guastella,

Mitchell, and Dadds (2007), who found that experimental administration of

oxytocin to male college students via nasal inhalation caused them to give added

attention to the eye region of faces shown to them in photographs. The authors

suggested that oxytocin administration might have therapeutic benefits for groups

such as those with schizophrenia and autism, who have chronic difficulties in social

communication (see Chapter 3). This possibility found empirical support in a study

by Andari and colleagues (2010), who noted that individuals with autism spent

more time gazing at the eyes of pictured faces after they had inhaled oxytocin.

Future therapies will likely involve a combination of interventions and will need to

be tailored to meet the specific deficits associated with the various ASDs.

TOPICS AND TASKS

Common sense suggests that the topic being discussed and the task at hand affect

the amount of gazing. We would expect, for instance, more gazing when the topic

is happy rather than sad or interesting as opposed to not. For example, one study

found that typically developing children as well as children diagnosed with high-

functioning autism exhibited more looking at an adult face when talking about a

topic of interest to them (Nadig, Lee, Singh, Bosshart, & Ozonoff, 2010). We

would expect interactants who have not developed an intimate relationship to

gaze less when discussing intimate topics, assuming other factors, such as the need

for affiliation or inclusion, are controlled. People also may gaze differently during

competitive tasks and cooperative tasks. In one study, cooperators used longer

gazes and mutual gazes to signal trust, liking, and honesty. Gazes also were used

to aid coordination. Competitors, however, seemed to use frequent, short gazes to

assess their partner’s intentions while not giving away their own (Foddy, 1978).

314 PART IV THE COMMUNICATORS’BEHAVIOR

Copyright 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has

deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

FACESAY™

Children who suffer from ASD have interpersonal difficulties related to understanding other people’s emo-

tion states. Understanding others’emotion states depends, in part, on attending to their facial cues. Children

with ASD show deficits in following the eye gaze of others and appear not to use information in the eye

region of people’s faces adequately when making emotion judgments.

Symbionica, LLC, created FaceSay, which is an interactive computer game designed to help children with

ASD develop skill in recognizing facial expressions of emotion. Children with ASD play games that have

them follow the eye gaze of an avatar, focus on the eye region of an avatar, and decide whether faces are

showing the same expression.

To illustrate, in one game, a child with ASD views the head and face of a female avatar that is encircled

by various objects, including a sun, leaf, and eye mask. She says, “These do look fun”as she scans the

objects around her head. She then says, “Can you please click on the one I’m looking at”while she is look-

ing at the eye mask, which is to her right. During a pause in speaking, she looks forward at the child and

then right back to the eye mask.

The child needs to click on the object that the avatar was looking at. If he or she selects the right one—

in this case, the eye mask—the avatar says, “Thank you, that’s just what I wanted.”During this time, the

eye mask appears on the avatar’s face, which is looking at the child again, and the child earns a point for

the correct answer.

This game helps children with ASD focus on the eyes and gaze pattern of the avatar. Getting comfort-

able doing so, as well as gaining experience using social information from the eyes, are social skills that

can help these children interact more successfully with their peers at school.

OSTILL/Photos.com

CHAPTER 10 THE EFFECTS OF EYE BEHAVIOR ON HUMAN COMMUNICATION 315

Copyright 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has

deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

Discussing topics that cause embarrassment, humiliation, shame, or guilt might

be expected to engender less gazing at the other person. Looking away during such

situations may be an effort to insulate oneself against threats, arguments, informa-

tion, or even affection from the other party. When subjects were caused to fail at

an anagram task and were publicly criticized for their work, they not only reported

feeling embarrassed, but the amount of gaze slipped from 30 percent to 18 percent

(Modigliani, 1971). When people want to hide some aspect of their inner feelings,

they may try to avoid visual contact—for example, in situations where they are try-

ing to deceive a partner. The extent to which this occurs may vary with age and

personality characteristics. Young children, for example, may be more likely than

adults to break eye contact when lying than when telling the truth (McCarthy &

Lee, 2009). Exline, Thibaut, Hickey, and Gumpert (1970) designed a fascinating,

although possibly ethically unsound, experiment. A paid confederate induced

research participants to cheat on an experimental task. Later, the experimenter

interviewed the participants with the supposed purpose of understanding and eval-

uating their problem-solving methods. With some participants, the experimenter

grew increasingly suspicious during the interview and finally accused the partici-

pant of cheating and demanded an explanation. Participants included both those

who scored high and low on tests of Machiavellianism, a characteristic of a person

who uses cunning and shrewdness to achieve a goal without much regard for how

unscrupulous the means might be. Figure 10-4 shows that high Machiavellian par-

ticipants used gazing to present the appearance of innocence after being accused of

cheating; low Machiavellian participants, in contrast, continued to look away.

In the study by Bensing and colleagues mentioned earlier, physicians’average

levels of gaze at patients were much greater when the patients were talking about

FIGURE 10-4

Gazing, Machiavellianism, and deception.

316 PART IV THE COMMUNICATORS’BEHAVIOR

Copyright 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has

deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

social and emotional topics than when talking about more physiological problems,

and levels were also high when the physicians were verbally conveying empathy or

psychosocial interest. Patients were also more satisfied with their visits when the

physicians gazed more.

Persuasion is another communicative task we often undertake. We know that

gazing can add emphasis to a particular point, but Mehrabian and Williams

(1969) found that a person trying to be persuasive gazes more overall. And

research shows that listeners judge speakers who gaze more as more persuasive,

informed, truthful, sincere, and credible, and even pictured faces appear more trust-

worthy when the eyes are showing a direct versus an averted gaze (Wyland &

Forgas, 2010). Also, compliance with a request can be enhanced if the requester

engages in more gazing within an appropriate range (Guéguen & Jacob, 2002).

The application of such findings in a simulated courtroom situation found that

witnesses who testified while looking slightly downward, rather than directly at

their questioner, were judged less credible—and the defendant for whom they were

testifying was more likely to be judged guilty (Hemsley & Doob, 1978). In another

important study, actors reenacted the actual verbal performances of surgery stu-

dents during medical school oral examinations, using a nonverbal style marked

either by direct gaze and a moderate speech rate or by indirect gaze and a slower

speech rate. Surgery faculty from 46 medical institutions who judged the compe-

tency of these reenacted oral examinations gave significantly higher scores to the

actor who used direct gaze and a moderate rate of speech, even though the answers

were the same as in the other condition (Rowland-Morin, Burchard, Garb, & Coe,

1991). It is clear from these studies that in real-life situations, the presence or

absence of gaze can have a profound impact, yet the impact can be highly unfair

or damaging. We would not want to be the honest witness, the sincere speaker, or

the competent medical student who had the misfortune to gaze less than expected.

CULTURAL AND RACIAL BACKGROUND AND RACIAL ATTITUDES

Eye behavior also varies according to the environment in which we learn social

norms. Sometimes gazing patterns show differences between “contact”cultures,

such as Arab cultures, and “noncontact”cultures, such as northern European cul-

tures (see Chapters 5, 8, and 13). Sometimes cultural rules dictate whom you

should or should not look at. One report says that in Kenya, conversations

between some men and their mothers-in-law are conducted by each party turning

his or her back to the other.

We may find different racial patterns within our own culture. Whites are found

to gaze significantly more at their partners than blacks do, and this difference may

be especially pronounced with authority figures—a tendency that could create

cross-racial misunderstanding. Some research shows blacks’and whites’changing

gazing patterns in cross-racial encounters, but the research is not consistent (Fehr &

Exline, 1987; Halberstadt, 1985). Interestingly, when a face is gazing at you as

opposed to away from you, you are likely to have better memory for it when it is of

the same race rather than a different race than you (Adams, Pauker, & Weisbuch,

2010). Also, how we process a fearful face may vary as a function of the gaze and

racial match of the person we are viewing. For instance, Adams and colleagues had

CHAPTER 10 THE EFFECTS OF EYE BEHAVIOR ON HUMAN COMMUNICATION 317

Copyright 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has

deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

Japanese and U.S. white participants view fearful faces from Japanese versus U.S.

white faces; greater responsiveness (namely, neural activity) was observed when the

faces were of the same race and looking away, whereas direct gaze from opposite-

race faces elicited greater neural reactions. Such findings underscore the variety of

factors that may influence and be affected by gaze in each encounter.

Of course, our cultural inclinations may be suppressed, neutralized, or empha-

sized by other forces attendant to the situation. And, although cultural experiences

may alter gazing patterns and the total amount of gaze, we may find that perceived

extremes in gaze elicit similar meanings in different cultures. For instance, too

much gazing may signal anger, threat, or disrespect; too little may signal dishon-

esty, inattention, or shyness.

Because people often enact nonverbal behavior without conscious awareness,

psychologists have suggested that nonverbal cues may sometimes be subtle indica-

tors of social attitudes, especially those that may be denied or not consciously

acknowledged, such as negative feelings toward members of minority groups

(Crosby, Bromley, & Saxe, 1980; Word, Zanna, & Cooper, 1974). Dovidio,

Kawakami, Johnson, Johnson, and Howard (1997) predicted that the amount of

gaze directed by interviewees toward black versus white interviewers would be

related to the interviewees’implicit racial attitudes. As predicted, interviewees who

had displayed more implicit racial bias gazed less at the black than the white inter-

viewer and also blinked more, suggesting greater negative arousal and tension.

However, these nonverbal cues were not related to explicit, and more reactive,

paper-and-pencil reports of prejudice by the interviewees.

PUPIL DILATION AND CONSTRICTION

Researchers currently utilize video-based eye-tracking tools that measure where

people are looking, how long they are looking at something, and how their pupils

respond to what they are looking at and doing, cognitively speaking (Wang, 2011).

Of interest here is how people’s pupils, which, as you know, can dilate and constrict,

might signal their interest level, attitudes, memory, decision-making processes, as

well as various disorders. We will first review the groundbreaking but somewhat

controversial early work in this area before turning to current research trends.

Most of us are aware that the pupils of the eyes constrict in the presence of bright

light and dilate in the absence of light. In the early 1960s, however, Eckhard Hess and

colleagues ushered in a new way of thinking about pupil dilation and constriction by

suggesting that they were possible indicators of interest. In an early experiment, Hess

and Polt (1960) presented five pictures to male and female subjects. Males’pupils

dilated more than females’pupils in response to pictures of female nudes; females’

pupils dilated more than males’to pictures of a partially clothed “muscle man,”a

woman with a baby, and a baby alone. Thus, it seemed pupil dilation and interest in

the stimulus were related. In a follow-up study, Hess, Seltzer, and Shlien (1965)

found that the pupils of homosexual males dilated more when viewing pictures of

males than did the pupils of heterosexual males, whose pupils dilated in response to

female pictures. Studies since then have had similar results.

With respect to attitudes, Barlow (1969) preselected subjects who actively sup-

ported either liberal or conservative candidates. He photographed the pupil of the

318 PART IV THE COMMUNICATORS’BEHAVIOR

Copyright 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has

deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

right eye of the subjects while they watched slides of political figures and found

what seemed to be a perfect correlation between pupillary response and political

attitudes, with dilation occurring for photographs of liked candidates and constric-

tion occurring for photographs of disliked candidates.

Several of Hess’s studies suggested that pupil response might be a bidirectional

index of attitudes: Pupils dilate for positive attitudes and constrict for negative

ones. His oft-cited finding in support of this theory was the constriction of the

pupils of subjects who viewed pictures of concentration camp victims, dead sol-

diers, and a murdered gangster. In Hess’s (1975a) words, “The changes in emo-

tions and mental activity revealed by changes in pupil size are clearly associated

with changes in attitude.”Hess continued to advocate this position, although he

acknowledged the need for more research on the pupil’s reaction to negative sti-

muli (Hess, 1975b; Hess & Petrovich, 1987).

Woodmansee (1970) tried to improve on Hess’s methodology and measuring

instruments and found no support for pupil dilation and constriction as an index of

attitudes toward African Americans. Hays and Plax (1971) found that their subjects’

pupils dilated when they received supportive statements, such as “I am very much

interested in your speech,”but constriction did not follow nonsupportive statements,

such as “I disagree completely with the development of your speech.”Some research

has found pupil dilation in response to both positive and negative feedback (Janisse

& Peavler, 1974; Partala & Surakka, 2003). Other research has found dilation of

the pupil to be associated with arousal, attentiveness, interest, and perceptual orien-

tation but not to be an attitudinal index. Thus, the intriguing hypothesis that pupils

can be used as bidirectional indicators of attitudes appears not to be viable.

Pupil-size research is difficult to do, in part because many stimuli can cause

variations in pupil size. Tightening muscles anywhere on the body, anticipation of

a loud noise, drugs, eyelid closure, and mental effort all alter pupil size. People

also have varying absolute pupil sizes. Children, for instance, have larger absolute

pupil sizes than adults. With so many sources of variation, it is difficult to state

positively that the dilation is exclusively due to an attitudinal orientation.

Recent research in recognition memory has shown that people’s pupils dilate

more when they are viewing items that they have seen before (i.e., old items as

opposed to new items), and that pupil dilation might reflect the strength of a per-

son’s memory for an item (Otero, Weekes, & Hutton, 2011). It appears that this

old-versus-new effect is not something we can consciously control. Heaver and

Hutton (2011) found that participants’pupils dilated more to old items than new

items even when they were instructed to “feign amnesia”or report “all items as

new.”This suggests that measures of pupil dilation might be a means of determin-

ing whether a person is pretending to have forgotten things that they really have

not or whether he or she is possibly not consciously aware of something recogniz-

able to him or her at a nonconscious level.

Eye pupils also might signal when we have reached a decision or how we are

processing information about others (Einhäuser, Koch, & Carter, 2010; Goldinger,

He, & Papesh, 2009). Goldinger and colleagues had white and Asian participants

study faces from each other’s race as well as their own. They noted that partici-

pants made longer but fewer visual fixations, attended to a different set of facial

features, and had more dilated pupils when looking at faces from the other race.

CHAPTER 10 THE EFFECTS OF EYE BEHAVIOR ON HUMAN COMMUNICATION 319

Copyright 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has

deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

These findings point to possible differences in effort needed to initially process

faces from another race.

Researchers have begun to examine biomarkers of various clinical disorders,

one of which is pupil dilation. The question is whether the pupils of those who suf-

fer from disorders, such as ASD and depression, react differently to various stimuli

relative to controls (those without the disorder). Martineau and colleagues (2011)

noted that the average pupil size of children with ASD was smaller than that of

control children while viewing slides of neutral faces, avatar faces, and objects,

and Steidtmann, Ingram, and Siegle (2010) found that people with a history of

depression showed greater overall pupil dilation to negatively toned words than

did their nondepressed counterparts. Such findings point to the possible diagnostic

value of eye-tracking methodologies as well as to how pupillary responses might

offer clues to neurologically linked information-processing differences among those

with and without various clinical syndromes.

Another approach to studying pupil size is to investigate its impact on a viewer.

Hess (1975a) cited a study that showed photographs, like those in Figure 10-5, where

a woman’s pupils were retouched to appear large in one photo and smaller in the

other. Although male subjects did not tend to pick either picture as consistently

more friendly or attractive, they tended to associate positive attributes with the

woman who had larger pupils and negative attributes with the one with smaller

pupils. Hensley (1990) attempted to replicate Hess’s work and obtained the

responses of over 500 students to the photographs of models with constricted and

dilated pupils used by Hess. The students evaluated the photos on 22 characteris-

tics, including attractiveness, social skills, persuasiveness, friendliness, and out-

goingness. No statistically significant differences were found between responses to

photos of models with constricted pupils and those with dilated pupils on any of

the 22 characteristics, raising doubts about the strength of Hess’s claim.

Recently, several studies have shown that observers are sensitive to pupils of

different sizes, and the impact is especially pronounced in the context of a sad

facial expression. In a study that varied three levels of pupil size, observers saw

more intensity and more negativity when a sad face had smaller pupils (Harrison,

Wilson, & Critchley, 2007).

One study suggested that pupil dilation may be influential in selecting interac-

tion partners or even dates. Stass and Willis (1967) dealt with live subjects rather

than pictures. Subjects were told they would be in an experiment and that they

had to choose a partner who was trustworthy, pleasant, and easy to talk to on an

intimate basis. They were taken to a room where two other individuals waited. The

two people waiting had previously been independently rated as about the same in

general attractiveness. Eye gazing and pupil dilation, through use of a drug, were

varied. Once the naive subject left the waiting room, the experimenter asked

him or her to choose one of the two people and to give reasons for the choice.

Gazing was an overwhelming factor in choice making, but pupil dilation also was a

factor. A few people mentioned visual contact as a reason for their choice, but none

mentioned pupil dilation. Thus, for both women and men, pupil dilation seemed to

be an influential attraction device. Perhaps this would be no revelation to those

women who, in the Middle Ages, put drops of belladonna into their eyes to enlarge

their pupils, or to those expert romancers who suggest a dimly lighted meeting place.

320 PART IV THE COMMUNICATORS’BEHAVIOR

Copyright 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has

deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

SUMMARY

Although researchers have examined the size,

color, and position of the eyes, eye rings, eye-

brows, and eyespots in humans and other animals,

our major concern in this chapter was with peo-

ple’sgazeandmutualgaze.Wesaidthatgazing

serves many interpersonal functions:

1. Regulating the flow of communication, both

to open the channels of communication and

to assist in the turn-taking process.

2. Monitoring feedback.

3. Expressing emotion.

4. Communicating the nature of the interper-

sonal relationship, for example, to show

variations due to status, liking, and disliking.

We also outlined a number of factors that influ-

ence the amount and duration of gaze in human

relationships; for example, distance, physical

FIGURE 10-5

Stimulus photographs with pupils small and large.

IKO/Shutterstock.com

CHAPTER 10 THE EFFECTS OF EYE BEHAVIOR ON HUMAN COMMUNICATION 321

Copyright 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has

deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

characteristics, personal and personality charac-

teristics, topics and tasks, and cultural back-

ground. From this review, we would predict

more gazing in the following situations:

•You are discussing easy, impersonal topics.

•You are interested in your partner’s reac-

tions and are interpersonally involved.

•You like or love your partner.

•You are from a culture that emphasizes

visual contact in interaction.

•You are an extravert and not shy.

•You have high affiliative or inclusion needs.

•You are dependent on your partner, and the

partner has been unresponsive.

•You are listening rather than talking.

•You are female.

•You do not have a mental disorder such as

depression, autism, or schizophrenia.

•You are not embarrassed, ashamed, sor-

rowful, sad, or trying to hide something.

The preceding list is not exhaustive. Indeed, some

of the findings depend on certain important quali-

fications. For example, you may have less gaze and

less mutual gaze when you are physically close—

unless you happen to love your partner and want

to get as close physically and psychologically as

you can. This list is not intended to replace the

qualified principles that appear in the chapter.

The last part of this chapter dealt with pupil

dilation and constriction. We reviewed the find-

ings of Eckhard Hess and others who have pur-

sued his ideas. At this time, pupil dilation has

been associated with arousal, attentiveness, men-

tal effort, interest, and perceptual orientation.

Aside from Hess’s own work, however, mixed

support has been found for the idea that pupils

reflect attitudinal states. Dilation occurs under

conditions that seem to represent positive atti-

tudes, but not much support exists for the belief

that constriction of pupils is associated with neg-

ative attitudes.

Answers to Figure 10-2: (a) happy, (b) afraid,

(c) disgusted, (d) distressed, (e) guilty, (f) thought-

ful, (g) flirting, (h) arrogant.

QUESTIONS FOR DISCUSSION

1. How do you use gaze in your everyday life?

When are you more likely to gaze at someone

for a long period of time? When are you more

likely to gaze for a very short period of time?

2. Watch yourself in a mirror, and try to convey

the following emotions using only your eyes

and eyebrows: fear, anger, disgust, surprise,

happiness, and sadness. How do your eye

positions and movements change? How sim-

ilar are your expressions to those you see on

other people’s faces every day?

3. Try to recall a time when you had a conver-

sation with someone with a physical disabil-

ity, someone on crutches or in a wheelchair,

for example. Did your gazing patterns

change when interacting with this person as

opposed to interacting with an able-bodied

person? How did your gazing patterns

change?

4. As an experiment, try looking continuously

at the eye region of a person you are

conversing with. Is this difficult? Did the per-

son react to this in any way—for example, by

reducing gaze, moving back, or commenting?

5. People of higher status are sometimes said to

gaze more and for longer periods than people

of lower status. What do you think of this?

Think of examples that would and would

not be supportive of this theory.

6. Go to a bus or elevator that is crowded and

observe how you, as well as the other people,

use gaze in such a circumstance. How much,

when, where, and at whom do people gaze?

322 PART IV THE COMMUNICATORS’BEHAVIOR

Copyright 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has

deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

THE EFFECTS OF VOCAL CUES THAT

ACCOMPANY SPOKEN WORDS

[CHAPTER11]

Ideally, this chapter would not be in written form. Instead, it would be a recording

you could listen to. A recording would give you a greater appreciation of the vocal

nuances that are the subject of this chapter—or, as the cliché goes, how something

is said rather than what is said. But the dichotomy set up by this cliché is mislead-

ing because how something is said is frequently what is said.

Some responses to vocal cues are elicited because we deliberately try to manip-

ulate our voice to communicate various meanings. Robert J. McCloskey, spokes-

person for the State Department during the Nixon administration, reportedly

exemplified such behavior:

McCloskey has three distinct ways of saying, “I would not speculate”: spoken without

accent, it means the department doesn’t know for sure; emphasis on the “I”means “I

wouldn’t, but you may—and with some assurance”; accent on “speculate”indicates

that the questioner’s premise is probably wrong. (Newsweek, 1970, p. 106)

Most of us do the same kind of thing when we emphasize a particular part of a

message. Prosody is the word used to describe all the variations in the voice that

accompany speech and help to convey its meaning. Notice how different vocal

emphases influence the interpretation of the following message:

1. He’sgiving this money to Herbie. (He is the one giving the money, nobody else.)

2. He’sgiving this money to Herbie. (He is giving, not lending, the money.)

3. He’s giving this money to Herbie. (The money being exchanged is not from

another fund or source; it is this money.)

I understand a fury in your words

But not the words.

—Shakespeare, Othello, Act IV

323

Copyright 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has

deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

4. He’s giving this money to Herbie. (Money is the unit of exchange, not flowers

or beads.)

5. He’s giving this money to Herbie. (The recipient is Herbie, not Eric or Bill

or Rod.)

We manipulate vocal pitch to indicate the end of a declarative sentence (by lower-

ing it) or a question (by raising it). Sometimes we consciously manipulate our tone

to contradict the verbal message, as in sarcasm. For instance, you can say the

words “I’m having a wonderful time”so they mean “I’m having a terrible time.”

If you are perceived as being sarcastic, the vocal cues you have given probably

superseded the verbal message.

THE RELATIVE IMPORTANCE OF CHANNELS

The assumption that vocal cues will predominate in forming attitudes based on

contradictory vocal and verbal content prompted Mehrabian and his colleagues to

conduct research on the topic. In one study, listeners heard single words that had

previously been rated as positive, neutral, or negative spoken to them in positive

or negative vocal tones (Mehrabian & Wiener, 1967). This experiment led to the

following conclusion:

The variability of inferences about communicator attitude on the basis of information

available in content and tone combined is mainly contributed by variations in tone

alone. For example, when the attitude communicated in content contradicted the atti-

tude communicated by negative tone, the total message was judged as communicating

negative attitude. (p. 109)

A similar study, pitting vocal cues against facial and verbal cues, found facial cues

to be more influential (Mehrabian & Ferris, 1967). From these studies, Mehrabian

devised the following formula, which illustrates the differential impact or weighting

of verbal, vocal, and facial cues:

Perceivedattitudeofcommunicator ¼:07ðverbalÞþ:38ðvocalÞþ:55ðfacialÞ

Obviously the formula is limited by the design of Mehrabian’s experiments. For

instance, we do not know how the formula might change if some of the variables

were manipulated more vigorously, or if more or different people did the judging.

We do not know whether the formula would apply to verbal materials longer than

one word. And we do not know whether these respondents were reacting to the

inconsistency itself as a source of attitudinal information (see Lapakko, 1997, for

a critique). The fact that respondents resolved inconsistencies by relying on nonver-

bal cues does not mean evaluative information is conveyed by nonverbal cues

alone, or even mainly, in more realistic communication. In realistic settings, more-

over, we would expect that the message(s) conveyed by vocal cues would align

with that being communicated by facial cues and words more often than not. The

relative importance of vocal cues is likely to vary according to a number of factors,

such as the nature of the message, age of the decoder, the nature of the decoding

task, as well as various combinations of these three. Friedman (1979) found that

for some kinds of messages, words mattered more than the facial expressions.

Others have suggested that bodily action cues, such as facial expressions, posture,

324 PART IV THE COMMUNICATORS’BEHAVIOR

Copyright 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has

deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

and hand gestures, send a stronger message of frustration during arguments than

does the combination of verbal and nonverbal cues of frustration (e.g., pitch) (Yu,

2011). Still others have shown that, although words alone, prosody alone, and the

two combined can help people make decisions about whether a face is happy, sad,

or grimacing, one method is not necessarily better than the others (Pell, Jaywat,

Monetta, & Kotz, 2011).

The preference to base interpretations on words versus vocal cues changes with

age: Young children rely much more on verbal content, older children show a

mixed pattern, and adults rely much more on nonverbal tonal qualities (Bugental,

Kaswan, & Love, 1970; Morton & Trehub, 2001). However, even within a partic-

ular age, some emotional messages might be recognized better than others in the

vocal channel. For instance, preschoolers appear to recognize sadness in the voice

alone better than the emotions of happiness, fear, and anger. The nature of the

decoding task also needs to be taken into consideration. Paulmann and Pell (2011)

had participants make emotion judgments when only one cue was available (face

shown on a computer, voice heard over headphones, or text on a computer screen),

two cues (face and prosodic cues or prosodic cues with words) were available, or

all three were available. They noted that, in terms of identifying emotion states,

having access to more emotionally congruent cues was more helpful than just hav-

ing one. However, this research also showed that, if only one cue was available, the

visual cues from the face or text tended to be more informative than the prosodic

cues. In another study, Paulmann, Titone, and Pell (2012) had participants select

facial expressions that matched their task instructions (“click on the happy face”).

They found that participants looked longer at facial expressions that matched their

task instructions irrespective of whether the available prosodic cues matched or did

not match the emotion on the face that they were told to identify. This suggests

that semantic information may exert a more powerful influence than prosodic cues

on such tasks.

When viewers are asked to guess the thoughts and feelings of people shown on

videotape engaged in natural conversation, their accuracy is based far more on the

words that are spoken than on the nonverbal cues they see or hear (i.e., vocal cues)

(Gesn & Ickes, 1999; Hall & Schmid Mast, 2007). However, nonverbal cues did

contribute to accuracy, especially when the viewers were asked to focus on the tar-

get persons’feelings. Nowadays, with text messaging and email, people rely a great

deal on communication via words alone, and it is reasonable to ask what might be

missed in such a medium. Kruger, Epley, Parker, and Ng (2005) found that when

affective messages were conveyed through email, they were much less accurately

decoded than when the same messages were conveyed in voice-to-voice and face-

to-face conditions. Furthermore, adding facial cues did not improve accuracy

beyond the voice-only condition. In this instance, vocal cues were crucial to fully

conveying attitudinal intent. Above and beyond issues of accuracy, prosodic cues in

face-to-face interactions offer a means of emotional support that emails and text

messages cannot provide. Seltzer, Prososki, Ziegler, and Pollak (2012) found that

girls who sent text messages to their mothers after undergoing a stressful experi-

ence had cortisol levels—which is one marker of a person’s current stress level—

similar to children who did not interact with a parent at all, whereas those who

had either interacted with their mothers on the phone or in person (thus having

CHAPTER 11 THE EFFECTS OF VOCAL CUES THAT ACCOMPANY SPOKEN WORDS 325

Copyright 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has

deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

access to prosodic cues from their mothers’voice) showed increases in oxytocin,

which is thought to be linked to the experience of positive relationships with

others. In short, vocal cues were important in helping these girls cope with the

stress, whereas text messages were not.

Studies comparing impressions made by the voice to those made by the face

have found the voice especially suited to conveying degrees of dominance or potency.

The face has a greater impact on judgments of pleasantness or positivity (Zuckerman,

Amidon, Biship, & Pomerantz, 1982; Zuckerman & Driver, 1989) and is a more

effective channel than the voice by which to judge people’s rapport (Grahe &

Bernieri, 1999). Vocal clues to dominance include speed, tendency to interrupt, and

loudness; the most obvious clue to pleasantness in the face is a smile. However,

each modality can convey a wealth of other messages through more subtle varia-

tions. For example, the presence of a smile can be evident in the voice alone; in smil-

ing, the vocal tract is shortened, with the effect of raising the resonances (Scherer,

1986). Some actors who do voice-overs on television advertisements are skilled in

conveying a cheerful attitude through their voice quality alone.

Thus, even though the impact of the voice relative to other channels of com-

munication may vary according to many factors, there is no doubt that vocal cues

exert a great deal of influence on listener perceptions. Often these responses are

based on stereotypes associated with various vocal qualities. Not surprisingly, the

existence of such stereotypes means that some vocal qualities are preferred over

others. Zuckerman and Driver (1989) documented that listeners generally agree on

whether a voice is attractive or not, and also that people whose voices are consid-

ered more attractive are believed to have personality traits such as dominance,

competence, industriousness, sensitivity, and warmth. Other stereotypes relating to

the voice will be described later in this chapter.

THE INGREDIENTS AND METHODS OF STUDYING PARALANGUAGE

The physical mechanisms for producing nonverbal vocal qualities and sounds, also

called paralanguage, are extremely complex (Juslin & Scherer, 2005). Figure 11-1

illustrates the many muscles and other structures involved in producing vocal

sounds; these include the throat, nasal cavities, tongue, lips, mouth, and jaw. In

this chapter, however, we focus on the impact of paralanguage rather than the

mechanisms by which it is produced. Many techniques and methods have been

developed for studying the role of vocal nonverbal cues in the communication pro-

cess (Scherer, 2003). We provide just a short introduction here.

In one approach to studying nonverbal vocal communication, listeners are asked

for their impressions or inferences about a voice sample, for example, how anxious

or competent the voice sounds. Using this method, a researcher may gain insight

into the social meanings of vocal cues because listeners’impressions are based on

their store of experience, knowledge, and beliefs. However, a researcher learns little

about what specific vocal cues created a given impression because listeners are inter-

preting the vocal cues in an implicit way to reach a final impression. A listener may

know an angry voice when he or she hears one, but may not be able to pinpoint the

acoustic properties that made it sound angry. (Whether their impressions are correct

is a separate issue from the question of how the impressions are formed.)

326 PART IV THE COMMUNICATORS’BEHAVIOR

Copyright 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has

deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

FIGURE 11-1

Muscles and structures involved in speech and paralanguage.

Source: From Fernando Poyatos, Paralanguage: A Linguistic Approach to Interactive Speech and Sound, 1993, p. 49.

With kind permission by John Benjamins Publishing Company, Amsterdam/Philadelphia. www.benjamins.com.

CHAPTER 11 THE EFFECTS OF VOCAL CUES THAT ACCOMPANY SPOKEN WORDS 327

Copyright 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has

deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

In contrast, sometimes researchers want, and need, to measure specific vocal

characteristics, also called acoustic properties, and for this they use automated

devices or trained coders. Voice researchers use automated measurement by com-

puters much more than do researchers who study nonvocal modalities of communi-

cation, in part because the technology exists for doing so. Commonly measured

acoustic properties include the following: speech rate, or words per unit of time;

fundamental frequency (F

0

), which is the vibration rate of the vocal folds in the

throat and the main contributor, along with the harmonics and resonances thus

produced, to the perception of pitch; and intensity, which is the energy value for a

speech sound, perceived as loudness. Each of these can be measured as an average

value over an utterance or over some other unit of time, or they can be described

more dynamically in terms of range, variation, and contour (Scherer, 1986).

It is also possible to assess vocal nonverbal behavior at a level between these

impressionistic and purely descriptive extremes. A listener might be asked to char-

acterize a voice as whiny, breathy, or abrupt but not to go to the next level of sub-

jectivity by inferring a trait or mood. For instance, from the three adjectives just

named, a listener might infer that the speaker is weak, sexy, or rude, respectively.

You can see that the last three descriptions are further removed from the actual

vocal cues and more inferential than the first three. Studying perceptions at this

midway point is a crucial link in understanding the relationship between acoustic

features of voices and their social impact (Scherer, 1982).

The fact that the voice has acoustic features perceived and interpreted by a lis-

tener according to his or her knowledge, stereotypes, and other cognitions is part

of what is called the lens model of nonverbal judgment (Scherer, 2003). According

to this model, a full understanding of vocal and other nonverbal phenomena must

acknowledge a series of interlocking steps: A person’s state or trait (A) is reflected

in acoustic behavior (B), which is perceived by a listener (C), who forms an impres-

sion or attribution (D), which may then be the basis for behavioral reaction or

change in the listener (E). Studies hardly ever include all of these elements. One

study might document how a speaker’s emotional state is reflected in acoustic

changes (A–B), whereas another might relate acoustic properties of the voice to lis-

teners’impressions of personality (B–D), and so forth.

Researchers are also interested in the development of skill in using acoustic

cues as well as in disturbances to this ability. To this end, experiments are conducted

with infants and children to understand if or when they can use prosodic cues in

the processing of language (Berman, Chambers, & Graham, 2010; Sakkalou &

Gattis, 2012). Also, children and adults who suffer from specific disorders, such as

Williams syndrome (where there are deficits in the production and comprehension

of prosody), are compared to typically developing children in an effort to isolate

the neurologic mechanisms that might contribute to their underlying problem in

processing emotional cues from language (Pinheiro et al., 2011).

All approaches for measuring vocal behavior have strengths and weaknesses.

The choice depends on the questions being asked in the particular study. Hall,

Roter, and Rand (1981), for example, were interested in the impact of physicians’

and patients’communication of emotion during medical visits. Accordingly, they

asked listeners to rate the emotions conveyed in content-masked audiotapes of doc-

tors and patients talking during medical office visits. (Content masking obscures

328 PART IV THE COMMUNICATORS’BEHAVIOR

Copyright 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has

deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

THE SOUNDS OF ILLNESS

You undoubtedly have heard

the hoarse or whisper-like

speaking voice of a friend

and realized that he or she

had laryngitis, a physical

condition in which swollen

vocal cords affect the sound

we hear from people. Clini-

cians, such as psychologists

and psychiatrists, also listen

to the speech of others, but

generally for the purpose of

identifying possible clues to

disturbances of the mind.

They rely on the Diagnostic

and Statistical Manual of

Mental Disorders (DSM-IV)

to diagnose various psycholo-

gical disorders. The DSM-IV

lists the features associated

with each mental disorder,

and speech is sometimes one

of many different features

mentioned. The following are

examples of speech cues that

are linked to various disorders

in the DSM-IV and research:

Attention-deficit/hyperactivity: Talking

excessively, loud voice.

Schizophrenia: Disorganized speech,

flat voice, poor vocal emotion

expression.

Manic episode: Pressured speech.

Depression: Slow speech, long pauses.

Major depression with catatonic

features: Echolalia (the person repeats

words or phrases that others have just

spoken).

Histrionic personality disorder: Speech

is excessively impressionistic and lacking

in detail.

Eduardo Jose Bernardino/Photos.com

Catalin Petolea/Photos.com

CHAPTER 11 THE EFFECTS OF VOCAL CUES THAT ACCOMPANY SPOKEN WORDS 329

Copyright 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has

deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

the verbal information while retaining nonverbal vocal properties, as explained in

Chapter 3 and later in this chapter.) They found that if the physician sounded

angry, anxious, or contented, the patient did also, and vice versa; in other

words, there was a reciprocation of expressed feelings. In that study, gathering

judges’impressions made more sense than measuring acoustic properties, such as

fundamental frequency or loudness, because the interest was in social impact, not

the specific cues. But another researcher might focus on uncovering the relation-

ship between the descriptive and impressionistic levels, that is, finding out what

increased fundamental frequency, intensity, and so forth, mean in terms of listen-

ers’perceptions. For example, a voice tone we would label as “breathy”is produced

by narrowing the glottis a little while letting through more air than is the case for a

normal voice and making the vocal folds vibrate without fully closing (Poyatos,

1993). Researchers studying vocal communication of emotion have been particularly

active in trying to uncover what cues are used to convey different emotions.

The voice is capable of a great variety of sounds (Poyatos, 1993; Trager,

1958). The components most closely tied to speech include the three already men-

tioned—frequency, intensity, and speed—as well as vocal lip control, ranging from

sharp to smooth transitions; articulation control, either forceful or relaxed; rhythm

control, varying from smooth to jerky; and resonance, describing voice ranges from

resonant to “thin.”Other nonverbal vocal behaviors are less tied to speech and

may even substitute for speech. These include laughing, crying, whispering, snor-

ing, yelling, moaning, yawning, whining, sighing, and belching, along with the

common “uh,”“um,”“mmm,”“uh-huh,”and other such sounds, some of which

merge with our definitions of linguistic behavior. Also included as paralanguage

are nonsounds, such as pauses between words or phrases within one person’s

speech and pauses when a new speaker begins, also called a switching pause or

speech latency. Some related phenomena, which Mahl and Schulze (1964) placed

under the broad heading of extralinguistic phenomena, are also relevant to any dis-

cussion of communication and vocal behavior. These include dialect or accent,

nonfluencies, duration of utterance, and interaction rates.

Now that we have a sense of the ingredients of paralanguage, we can ask the

next logical question: What reactions do vocal cues elicit, and how are they impor-

tant in communicating?

VOCAL CUES AND SPEAKER RECOGNITION

You may have had this experience: You pick up the phone and say, “Hello.”The

voice on the other end says, “Hi, how ya doin’?”At this point you realize two

things: (1) The greeting suggests an informality found among people who are sup-

posed to know each other, and (2) you don’t know who it is! So you try to extend

the conversation without admitting your ignorance, hoping some verbal cue will be

given, or that you eventually will recognize the caller’s voice. As a result, you say

something like, “Fine. What have you been up to?”Speaker recognition is impor-

tant not only to all of us in everyday life but also to law enforcement officials and

governments. Joseph Stalin assigned teams of imprisoned scientists and engineers

to develop speaker-recognition technology so Stalin’s police could easily identify

“enemies of the state”(Hollien, 1990).

330 PART IV THE COMMUNICATORS’BEHAVIOR

Copyright 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has

deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

Each time you speak, you produce a complex acoustic signal. It is not exactly

the same each time you speak, even if it is the same word, nor is the acoustic signal

you produce exactly the same as the one produced by other speakers. The proba-

bility that greater differences will exist between the voices of two different speakers

than the voice of a single speaker at two different times has led to considerable

interest in the process of identifying speakers by their voices alone. There are three

primary methods for identifying speakers from the voice:

1. Listening

2. Visual comparison of spectrograms (voiceprints)

3. Recognition by computers that compare the acoustic patterns of a standard

spoken message to stored versions of the same message previously spoken by

the same speaker

Although machines are credited with many accomplishments in today’s society,

ordinary human listening compares favorably with the other two techniques for

accuracy in most speaker-recognition tasks. Under certain circumstances, human

beings can recognize speakers with a high degree of accuracy. In one study, a single

sentence was enough to identify 8 to 10 work colleagues at more than 97 percent

accuracy (van Lancker, Kreiman, & Emmorey, 1985). In another study, 83 percent

accuracy for 29 familiar speakers was achieved (Ladefoged & Ladefoged, 1980). It

appears that listeners can use numerous acoustic cues to identify a speaker, but it is

not clear which ones reliably distinguish one speaker from another, as some cues,

such as speaking rate, are important to the recognition of some voices but not

others (Creel & Bregman, 2011; Van Lancker, Kreiman, & Wickens, 1985). More-

over, even when listeners accurately identify a speaker from his or her voice, they

are probably not able to explain the perceptual bases for their decision. Law

enforcement and judicial agencies have a special concern for identifying speakers

objectively from their vocal characteristics. At the famous trial of Bruno

Hauptmann, the kidnapper of Charles and Anne Morrow Lindbergh’s baby,

Charles Lindbergh claimed he recognized Hauptmann’s voice as the voice of the

kidnapper, even though it had been about 3 years since he had heard it. Skeptical

about the accuracy of this identification, McGehee (1937) conducted research that

found accuracy tends to drop sharply after 3 weeks, and after 5 months, it dips to

about 13 percent. Subsequent research has also found reductions in accuracy over

time, but often not as dramatic as those McGehee found. Accuracy of identification

by listeners also falls notably as the speech samples are made shorter; when various

distortions or distractions occur—such as more speakers, disguised voices, whisper-

ing, and dialects; and when the target voice is paired with another that sounds sim-

ilar to it (Hollien, 1990; Kerstholt, Jansen, van Amelsvoort, & Broeders, 2006).

And, of course, accuracy varies with how many times one has heard the voice in

question.

Many factors affect listening accuracy, but similar problems plague efforts to

devise more “objective”methods of speaker recognition—not the least of which is

the knowledge that no single set of acoustic cues reliably distinguishes speakers.

One effort to find a more objective method of speaker identification involves

the spectrogram, also called a voiceprint, which is a visual picture of a person’s

speech. A spectrogram is a plot of vocal energy in different frequency bands as a

CHAPTER 11 THE EFFECTS OF VOCAL CUES THAT ACCOMPANY SPOKEN WORDS 331

Copyright 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has

deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

function of time. Although some have made strong claims for the accuracy and reli-

ability of spectrographic analysis, it seems to be quite fallible (Bolt et al., 1973).

Errors in human judgment occur as interpretations of the visual data are made.

The interpreter’s skill becomes particularly relevant when we look at Figure 11-2.

These two similar spectrograms of two different people uttering a single word

make it sufficiently clear that we must weigh our reliance on spectrograms as evi-

dence at trials very carefully (Hollien, 1990). Spectrograms are not like finger-

prints. True, no two voices are exactly alike, but depending on the voice sample

obtained and the equipment used, two different voices may appear very similar. In

contrast, fingerprints, unlike voices, show little variability from one measurement

to the next, unless, of course, smudges or smears have occurred. One study asked

speakers to produce the same sentence using their normal voice and a number of

“disguises”—speaking like an old person, using a hypernasal voice, a hoarse voice,

a slow rate of speech, and a disguise of the speaker’s own choosing. These voice

samples were then submitted to spectrographic analysis by experts who were paid

$50 if they achieved the highest accuracy of identification. Normal voices were

matched with about 57 percent accuracy, but all the disguises significantly inter-

fered with identification. The least accuracy was achieved when speakers chose

their own type of disguise (Reich, Moll, & Curtis, 1976). Hollien (1990) concluded

that spectrographic recognition is a still unvalidated methodology.

FIGURE 11-2

Similar spectrograms of the word “you”uttered by two arbitrarily selected speakers.

Source: Hollien, H. (1990). The acoustics of crime: The new science of forensic phonetics. New York: Plenum.

Reprinted with kind permission from Springer Science and Business Media.

332 PART IV THE COMMUNICATORS’BEHAVIOR

Copyright 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has

deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

VOCAL CUES AND PERSONALITY

One cultural syndrome that aptly illustrates our association of vocal cues with cer-

tain personality characteristics concerns the low, deep voice associated with men

and masculinity. Salespeople, radio and television announcers, lawyers, and many

others try to emulate low vocal tones, which they perceive as being more sophisti-

cated, appealing, sexy, or masculine than higher-pitched voices.

Numerous research efforts have tried to determine whether certain personality

traits are actually expressed in the voice and whether listeners are sensitive to

these cues. It is common to find the following:

1. High agreement among judges of the voices regarding the presence of certain

personality characteristics

2. Inconsistent agreement between the judges’personality perceptions and the

speaker’s actual score on personality tests

3. A very high correspondence between the judges’perceptions and actual crite-

rion measures for some voices and some personality traits

We can make several points about these findings. First, the criterion measures—

personality tests—are also frequently imperfect measures, meaning there might be

a higher correspondence than the data seem to indicate. Furthermore, research has

often ignored differences among listeners with respect to personality, culture, and

developmental traits, which may profoundly impact the listener’s accuracy in per-

ceiving personality traits based on vocal cues. Research also suggests that a given

personality trait may not be expressed similarly in the voices of people from differ-

ent cultures.

The finding that listeners cannot always detect personality from vocal cues

does not mean the voice does not contain any cues to personality. There are several

lines of positive evidence on this issue. Extraversion/introversion is the trait dimen-

sion best documented in vocal cues of American speakers. Cues associated with a

speaker’s actual, not just perceived, extraversion, when compared to introversion,

are more fluency—that is, shorter pauses when the speaking turn switches from

one speaker to another, shorter silent pauses within a person’s speech, and fewer

hesitations—faster rate, louder speech, more dynamic contrast, higher pitch (up to

a point), and more variable pitch. In addition, extraverted people have been

shown to talk more, in both number of words and total speaking time (Lippa,

1998; Siegman, 1987). However, other research has shown that self-reported mea-

sures that tap into extraversion are not related to a person’s talkativeness (Wardle,

Cedarbaum, & de Wit, 2010). Nevertheless, in light of some of the robust vocal

manifestations of extraversion, it is not surprising that people use vocal cues

such as loudness, fullness, and enunciation as a basis for judging extraversion

(Lippa, 1998).

Lippa (1998) also inquired about several dimensions of masculinity and femi-

ninity relative to vocal qualities, defining the masculinity–femininity dimensions in

terms of the participants’gender-typical preferences for occupations, hobbies, and

other activities. Among men, those who were more masculine by this definition

had poorer enunciation and less expressive, lower-pitched, slower, and louder

voices; among women, there was a correlation only for voice pitch—more

CHAPTER 11 THE EFFECTS OF VOCAL CUES THAT ACCOMPANY SPOKEN WORDS 333

Copyright 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has

deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

masculine women had lower-pitched voices. Listeners’perceptions partially

matched these associations, with higher ratings of masculinity being given to tar-

gets whose voices were less expressive and lower pitched.

The trait of dominance also has been documented to have an associated speech

style, and some of its elements overlap with those found for extraversion. Indivi-

duals who speak louder are perceived as more dominant (Harrigan, Gramata,

Luck, & Margolis, 1989; Tusing & Dillard, 2000), and indeed more dominant

individuals do tend to have voices that are louder than those of less dominant indi-

viduals (Hall, Coats, & Smith LeBeau, 2005; Siegman, 1987; Weaver & Anderson,

1973). Also, compared to women with higher voices, women with lower voices are

perceived as more dominant by men and women alike (Borkowska & Pawlowski,

2011). Because the stereotype and the actual behavior associated with dominance

coincide, it is not surprising that Berry (1991a) found that listeners were accurate

in judging the personality trait of assertiveness in voices recorded while expressors

recited the alphabet.

How personality is actually expressed in speech may be complex, but there is

no dearth of evidence that people believe speech contains clues to personality.

Addington (1968) conducted one of the most complete studies in this area. Male

and female speakers simulated nine vocal characteristics, and judges responded to

the voices by rating them on 40 personality characteristics. Judges were most reli-

able, meaning they agreed most with each other, in ratings of masculine–feminine,

young–old, enthusiastic–apathetic, energetic–lazy, and attractive–ugly. Addington

concluded that the male personality generally was perceived in terms of physical

and emotional power, whereas the female personality was apparently perceived in

terms of social faculties. Table 11-1 summarizes his results.

Addington posed some interesting questions for researchers studying vocal cues

and personality. To what extent are these stereotyped impressions of personality

maintained in the face of conflicting personality information? And what is the rela-

tionship between a given personality impression and vocal cues? For example,

Addington’s research indicated that increased pitch variety led to more positive per-

sonality impressions, but is it not possible that at some point, increasing pitch vari-

ety could become so exaggerated as to evoke negative perceptions? Zuckerman’s

research on vocal attractiveness suggests this may be so, because extremes of

pitch, pitch range, shrillness, and squeakiness produced more negative impressions.

Another question is the accuracy of some stereotypes. Consider the following.

Do gay males show vocal characteristics that are more similar to heterosexual

females than heterosexual males? In stereotype, gay men possess effeminate quali-

ties, including the pitch of their voice. Indeed, there is evidence that male actors

use a higher voice pitch when portraying a gay character (Cartei & Reby, 2012).

However, a study of actual pitch characteristics of gay men as well as heterosexual

men and women revealed that, although gay men do use a higher pitch than het-

erosexual men, it is significantly lower than that of the typical heterosexual female

(Baeck, Corthals, & Van Borsel, 2011). Thus, there is no evidence that gay men’s

voice pitch usually matches that of heterosexual females.

People with more attractive voices are, in general, rated as having better

personalities than people with less attractive voices, and are perceived as less neu-

rotic, more extraverted, and more open, warm, agreeable, powerful, honest, and

334 PART IV THE COMMUNICATORS’BEHAVIOR

Copyright 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has

deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

conscientious (Berry, 1992; Zuckerman, Hodgins, & Miyake, 1990; Zuckerman &

Miyake, 1993). People with more attractive voices, as judged by independent listen-

ers, are sexually active earlier, and have more partners, than those with less attrac-

tive voices. And, within each sex, those with more stereotypically desirable

physiques—that is, those with higher shoulder-to-waist ratios for men and lower

waist-to-hip ratios for women—also tend to have more attractive voices (Hughes,

Dispenza, & Gallup, 2004).

Zuckerman’s research, as well as that of others (Bloom, Moore-Schoenmakers,

& Masataka, 1999; Bloom, Zajac, & Titus, 1999; Riding, Lonsdale, & Brown,

2006), also uncovered the particular speech qualities that produced higher ratings

of vocal attractiveness. More attractive-rated voices were more resonant, less

monotonous, less nasal, even in infants; and for adult male voices, lower in pitch.

TABLE 11-1 SIMULATED VOCAL CUES AND PERSONALITY STEREOTYPES

Simulated

Vocal Cue Speakers Stereotyped Perceptions

Breathiness Males Younger, more artistic

Females More feminine, prettier, more petite, effervescent,

high-strung, shallower

Thinness Males Did not alter the listener’s image of the speaker, no

significant correlations

Females Increased social, physical, emotional, and mental

immaturity; increased sense of humor and

sensitivity

Flatness Males More masculine, more sluggish, colder, more

withdrawn

Females More masculine, more sluggish, colder, more

withdrawn

Nasality Males A wide array of socially undesirable characteristics

Females A wide array of socially undesirable characteristics

Tenseness Males Older, more unyielding, cantankerous

Females Younger; more emotional, feminine, high-strung;

less intelligent

Throatiness Males Older, more realistic, mature, sophisticated, well

adjusted

Females Less intelligent; more masculine; lazier; more

boorish, unemotional, ugly, sickly, careless,

inartistic, naive, humble, neurotic, quiet,

uninteresting, apathetic

Increased rate Males More animated and extraverted

Females More animated and extraverted

Increased pitch Males More dynamic, feminine, esthetically inclined

Variety Females More dynamic and extraverted

CHAPTER 11 THE EFFECTS OF VOCAL CUES THAT ACCOMPANY SPOKEN WORDS 335

Copyright 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has

deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

Personality stereotypes also exist about people with babyish voices. Both

adults and young children with more babyish voices are perceived as more warm

and honest but less powerful and competent than people with more mature-

sounding voices. It seems the general qualities attributed to children are attributed

to people with younger-sounding voices no matter what their actual age (Berry,

1992; Berry, Hansen, Landry-Pester, & Meier, 1994). This might explain why,

although a higher pitch in the female voice is perceived as attractive, too high of

a pitch is not, as this could be a vocal cue of sexual immaturity (Borkowska &

Pawlowski, 2011).

VOCAL CUES AND GROUP PERCEPTIONS

A related line of study involves associating various characteristics with voices rep-

resentative of groups of people. The study of dialects and accents is illustrative. In

George Bernard Shaw’splayPygmalion, and its musical adaptation My Fair

Lady, Eliza Doolittle spent considerable time and effort trying to correct her dia-

lect so she could rise in social standing. Professor Higgins says, “Look at her—a

pris’ner of the gutters; Condemned by ev’ry syllable she utters”(My Fair Lady,

Act I, Scene 1). Eliza’s training, according to one study, was most appropriate. It

suggests that if we expect a speaker to reflect a nonstandard or “lower-class”dia-

lect, and the speaker actually presents himself or herself in accordance with stan-

dard or “upper-class”models, the evaluation will be very positive. The reverse

also was true: Speakers who were expected to speak “up”but who spoke

“down”instead were evaluated negatively (Aboud, Clement, & Taylor, 1974).

Sometimes, though, there may be a fine line between adapting to our audience

and violating expectations based on our own background. If an audience thinks

we are faking something or concealing who we “really are,”they could judge us

harshly.

Although there are some exceptions, ordinarily dialects other than the one spo-

ken by the listener/evaluator receive less favorable evaluations than those consid-

ered standard. Generally, these negative responses occur because the listener

associates the speaker’s dialect with an ethnic or regional stereotype and then eval-

uates the voice in accordance with the stereotype.

Do regional varieties of speech in the United States differ in prestige value?

Listeners in Maine, Louisiana, New York City, Arkansas, and Michigan rated

12 voice samples of American dialects and one foreign accent (Wilke & Snyder,

1941). The most unfavorably regarded was the foreign accent and so-called

New Yorkese. Although this study is quite old, the New York Times recently

(November, 2010) had a story about how some New Yorkers seek professional

help (speech therapists) in order to reduce their New York accent. They seek help

because they are concerned that their accent is viewed negatively by outsiders and

might limit their ability to land jobs (e.g., acting) that have audiences expecting to

hear Standard American English. Several investigators have pursued the question of

exactly how we judge the speech and dialects of others. By far the most extensive

work in this direction was done by Mulac (1976). Mulac’s experiments have used

regional and foreign dialects, broadcasters, various speech pathologies, prose and

spontaneous speech, and different modes of presentation such as written format,

336 PART IV THE COMMUNICATORS’BEHAVIOR

Copyright 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has

deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

audiotape, videotape, and sound film. This work shows we tend to respond to

samples of speech along three primary dimensions:

1. Sociointellectual status, that is, high or low social status, blue or white collar,

rich or poor, and literate or illiterate

2. Aesthetic quality, that is, pleasing or displeasing, nice or awful, sweet or sour,

beautiful or ugly

3. Dynamism, that is, aggressive or unaggressive, active or passive, strong or

weak, loud or soft

These results confirm studies in many other areas of perception that show we tend

to see our world and the things in it according to power, evaluation, and activity

dimensions.

VOCAL CUES AND JUDGMENTS OF SOCIODEMOGRAPHIC

CHARACTERISTICS

The study of vocal cues about the sociodemographic characteristics of a speaker

might focus on the judgment process itself or the accuracy of the judgments. In

terms of the judgment process, researchers have examined how we recognize cues

to a person’s dialect from spoken words as well as the phonological markers of

regional difference in accent (Aubanel & Nguyen, 2010; Scharinger, Monahan, &

Idsardi, 2011). In terms of judgment accuracy, Pear (1931) did pioneering work

on vocal cues and judgments of personal characteristics. Using nine speakers and

over 4,000 radio listeners, he found a speaker’s age could be estimated fairly accu-

rately, the speaker’s sex with remarkable accuracy, birthplace with little accuracy,

and occasionally vocation with surprising accuracy. The actor and clergy were con-

sistently identified from among the nine professionals represented. Since that

time, others have been interested in judgments of such characteristics as body type,

height, weight, age, occupation, status or social class, race, sex, education, accents,

and dialect region. For instance, Krauss, Freyberg, and Morsella (2002) found that

a person’s photograph could be matched with his or her voice with significant

accuracy by naive participants.

There are three characteristics that are judged accurately and with some consis-

tency from vocal cues, namely, a person’s sex, age, and social class or status. These

will be discussed in detail next.

SEX

Listeners who heard six recorded vowels of 20 speakers were able to identify the

sex of the speaker 96 percent of the time when the tape was not altered in any

way. Accuracy decreased to 91 percent for a filtered tape and to 75 percent for a

whispered voice sample (Lass, Hughes, Bowyer, Waters, & Broune, 1976). These

authors argued that the fundamental frequency is a more important acoustic cue

in speaker gender identification than the resonance characteristics of the voices. It

is certainly the case that women typically speak with a higher fundamental fre-

quency, perceived as higher pitch, than men (Ko, Judd, & Blair, 2006; Viscovich

et al., 2003). Women’s voices are also more variable or expressive but less resonant

CHAPTER 11 THE EFFECTS OF VOCAL CUES THAT ACCOMPANY SPOKEN WORDS 337

Copyright 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has

deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

than men’s. Not surprisingly, these same features are used within gender when lis-

teners make ratings of how feminine or masculine a voice sounds (Ko et al., 2006).

Social factors can, of course, qualify sex differences. For instance, males and

females interacting with each other may manifest different vocal cues than when

they present monologues or interact with a member of the same sex (Markel,

Prebor, & Brandt, 1972). The topic of discussion also may affect voice production

and perceptions. And if differences gradually narrow as adaptations to the social

community are made, we might speculate that the vocal tones of working women

in predominantly male organizations may be harder to distinguish—particularly if

the sample is taken in the work milieu.

At the borderline between verbal and nonverbal behavior falls an area of

study concerned with speech styles, or speech registers. A speech register refers

to a total way of communicating through speech, which can include both nonver-

bal and verbal forms, and it is believed to vary systematically with social charac-

teristics of the speakers, for example, how socially powerful a person is (Erickson,

Lind, Johnson, & O’Barr, 1978). This research is pertinent to our discussion of

speaker gender because it has been suggested that certain verbal forms associated

with power differentiate the speech styles of men versus women (Lakoff, 1975).

Examples of less powerful speech stereotypically associated with females include

tag questions (“It’s a nice day, isn’tit?”), hedges and qualifiers (“sort of,”

“maybe”), disclaimers (“Idon’t know, but”), and intensifiers (“The puppy was

so cute”). Leaper and Robnett (2011), in a review of the research, concluded

that women did speak somewhat more tentatively than men, but this was not

due to women’s taking a submissive role in conversation. Rather, they concluded

that using more tentative speech is an aspect of women’s greater interpersonal

sensitivity (see Chapter 3).

Interruptions, another interactional strategy that can reflect dominance, also

have been hypothesized to differentiate between men and women in the direction

we might expect based on stereotype. People certainly do have well-developed

stereotypes about how men and women speak, but the evidence supporting the

hypothesis of gender differences in language use and interruptions is extremely

mixed (Aries, 1987; Dindia, 1987; Hirschman, 1994; Irish & Hall, 1995; Kramer,

1978; Marche & Peterson, 1993; Mulac, Lundell, & Bradac, 1986; Nohara, 1992;

Turner, Dindia, & Pearson, 1995). The fact that interruptions can signify enthusi-

astic, active participation in a conversation, rather than efforts to attain or express

dominance, is probably one reason why studies are mixed as to which gender inter-

rupts more; whereas early studies tended to find that men interrupted more, more

recent studies often find no difference, and some find that women interrupt more

than men.

Because interruptions can mean very different things, discussing them without

drawing functional distinctions can be very misleading. For example, in a study of

married and cohabiting couples by Daigen and Holmes (2000), the total number of

interruptions in the couples’conversations, as measured in a laboratory interaction,

was not related to marital satisfaction. But interruptions that conveyed disagreement

and disparagement of the other’s message did predict lower satisfaction, both at the

time and 2 years later—especially when the latter kind of interruption was directed

from the man to the woman. Further evidence that the impact of interruptions

338 PART IV THE COMMUNICATORS’BEHAVIOR

Copyright 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has

deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

might differ between men and women comes from Farley’s (2008) study showing

that, in general, speakers who interrupted often were less liked by listeners than

speakers who did not interrupt, but that this effect was especially pronounced when

the interrupter was a woman.

AGE

As we mentioned, studies show age to be fairly accurately assessed from vocal cues.

In a recent study, age was judged quite accurately from the voice, and not much

less so than when judgments were made from a full-length photograph (Krauss

et al., 2002). Research sheds light on what kinds of cues are likely relevant to judg-

ing age from the voice. With advancing age, speech slows down, and dysfluencies

and perturbations in fundamental frequency increase (Hummert, Mazloff, &

Henry, 1999). Several studies have investigated voice pitch of males during infancy,

childhood, adolescence, early adulthood, and middle and advanced age. There is a

general lowering of pitch level from infancy through middle age, with some studies

finding a reversal, such that pitch level rises slightly with advancing age. Changes

in pitch flexibility, tremor, speech rate, loudness, vocal quality, articulatory control,

and the like, may give clues to age. It is likely that we rely on a host of these cues as

opposed to only one when judging a voice to be that of an old person (Harnsberger,

Brown, Shrivastav, & Rothman, 2010).

SOCIAL CLASS OR STATUS

Several studies show listeners to be amazingly accurate in judging social class or

status on the basis of voice alone. Harms (1961) used a standard system to deter-

mine social class for nine speakers. Each speaker recorded a 40- to 60-second con-

versation in which he responded to questions and statements such as “How are

you?”and “Ask for the time.”Results show that listeners were not only able to

identify the speakers’status; many of them said they made their decision after only

10 to 15 seconds of listening to the recording.

CHARACTERISTICS OF RECIPIENTS

So far we have been discussing ways in which a speaker’s personal characteristics

are reflected in his or her nonverbal speech style. But it would be very surprising if

a person’s speech style did not also reflect characteristics of the other person in an

interaction. After all, we react to different kinds of people with many emotions and

thoughts that may be reflected in our vocal expression, and we also have notions

about how we ought to talk to different kinds of people.

A well-studied example of such a “target effect”is baby talk, also called

motherese, which is the high-pitched, singsong, slow, rhythmic, repetitive, simpli-

fied way that parents around the world—fathers as well as mothers—talk to

young children (Grieser & Kuhl, 1988; Snow & Ferguson, 1977; Trainor, Austin,

& Desjardins, 2000). Even young children know how to talk this way to babies

and pets. Zebrowitz, Brownlow, and Olson (1992) found that the facial character-

istics of children influenced how much baby talk they received from adults; those

CHAPTER 11 THE EFFECTS OF VOCAL CUES THAT ACCOMPANY SPOKEN WORDS 339

Copyright 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has

deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

with more babyish faces received more baby talk than same-age children who had

more mature-looking faces.

Infants prefer baby talk to normal adult speech, which suggests that it serves a

variety of functions. Various functions have been proposed for baby talk, including

getting the infant’s attention, promoting language development, clarifying the

speaker’s message, and creating an emotional bond. The last of these propositions

has been supported by research showing that motherese is part of an attachment

vocalization repertoire that humans are especially sensitive to (Chan & Thompson,

2011). As further evidence of this, Gordon, Zagoory-Sharon, Leckman, and

Feldman (2010) found that the amount of motherese displayed was linked to

oxytocin, a hormone thought to promote mother–infant bonding. Finally, Trainor

and colleagues (2000) noted that baby talk contains more free emotional expression

than typical adult-directed speech but is very similar in terms of acoustic characteris-

tics to adult-directed speech that emphasized the communication of emotion. What

makes baby talk distinctive, the authors argued, is that it contains more freely

expressed emotion than typical adult-directed speech does.

Particular sounds also might vary depending upon the age of the listener; for

example, Green, Nip, Wilson, Mefferd, and Yunusova (2010) showed that, relative

to how they spoke to other adults, mothers used an elevated pitch and a slower

speaking rate when making vowel sounds to their infants.

Certain groups of adults who have childlike qualities attributed to them—or

who are perceived (often erroneously) as cognitively impaired, such as the institu-

tionalized elderly or the deaf—are also spoken to in a way that resembles baby

talk. Psychologists are especially interested in this kind of “secondary”baby talk

because of the possibility that it contributes to the stigmatizing of groups perceived

as dependent or incompetent (Caporael, 1981).

With this in mind, DePaulo and Coleman (1986, 1987) compared the warmth of

speech directed toward children, adults with mental retardation, nonnative adult

speakers of English, and native adult English speakers, hypothesizing that warmth—

one component of baby talk—would decrease across these four groups. The predic-

tion was supported. In addition, when considering those with mental retardation

alone, speakers displayed more vocal warmth when speaking to those with more

extreme retardation. Particular ways of using the language also differed among the

groups: Speech to children was clearer, simpler, more attention maintaining, and had

longer pauses; speech to those with retardation was very similar to this; speech to for-

eigners, however, was more similar to that addressed to “normal people”except for

being more repetitive. The sex of the person being spoken to also influences how we

speak. Men are spoken to more loudly than women are by both men and women

(Markel et al., 1972). Similarly, in a study of people’svoicesontelevisiondramas

and talk shows, men were spoken to more dominantly, condescendingly, and

unpleasantly than women were by both men and women (Hall & Braunwald,

1981). However, listeners who heard the speaker without knowing the gender of the

person to whom they were speaking erroneously thought that women spoke meekly

to men, when in fact women and men both spoke more powerfully to men.

Men and women use vocal qualities, such as pitch, to assess the attractiveness

of members of the same and other sex as well as to communicate their attractive-

ness to members of the other sex. Regarding the latter, women were observed to

340 PART IV THE COMMUNICATORS’BEHAVIOR

Copyright 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has

deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

use a higher-pitched voice, which males find attractive, when leaving a voicemail

for a man they found to be attractive (Fraccaro et al., 2011). Women, on the

other hand, tend to find lower-pitched voices in men more attractive (Simmons,

Peters, & Rhodes, 2011). Lastly, both men’s and women’s feelings of jealousy

were shown to be greater when they had imagined a member of the other sex with

a more attractive voice pitch flirting with their romantic partner (O’Connor &

Feinberg, 2012).

VOCAL CUES AND EMOTION

Vocal cues are widespread among many animal species for communication about

territory, relationship, identity, alarm, physical states, and emotion (Kitchen,

Cheney, & Seyfarth, 2003; Marier, Evans, & Hauser, 1992). Darwin viewed the

voice as a primary channel for emotional signals in both humans and animals.

In this section we examine what is known about emotional expression in the

human voice.

One persistent question is whether people can identify emotions in the voice.

The answer is definitely “yes.”There is substantial accuracy even when speakers

and listeners are not from the same culture, and listeners in different cultures tend

to make the same errors and confusions when judging emotions in the voice,

though there appears also to be some advantage in judging voices from one’s own

culture (Juslin & Laukka, 2003; Scherer, 2003; Scherer, Banse, & Wallbott, 2001).

Pittam and Scherer (1993) concluded that the recognition of emotion from the

voice is four to five times what would be expected if listeners were simply guessing,

and Juslin and Laukka (2003) concluded that across five different emotions, accu-

racy of judgment averaged 90 percent when calculated against a guessing rate of

50 percent.

Another question concerns whether people use vocal cues in visual or thematic

emotion-judgment tasks, and whether they do so in a similar fashion across cul-

tures. Jaywant and Pell (2012) observed that participants made fewer errors in

judging facial expressions when they had first heard vocal cues expressing the

same emotion state as the face. Sauter, Eisner, Ekman, and Scott (2010) had parti-

cipants from two distinct cultural groups (English, European, and the Himba from

Nambia) listen to a story in their native language that was designed to arouse a

specific emotion state, such as sadness. Next, participants listened to two vocaliza-

tions of emotions. These emotional vocalizations were produced by members from

their own cultural group as well as from members of the other cultural group.

Importantly, one of two emotional vocalizations matched and the other did not

match the emotional content of the story. Results showed that members of both

cultures were able to match basic emotion states in vocal cues (anger, fear, disgust,

amusement, sadness, surprise) to the emotional content of the story, and that they

were able to do this using vocal cues from members of their own cultural group as

well as those from members of the other cultural group.

Concerned that most emotion-judgment tasks present several negative

emotions—such as anger, sadness, and fear—but typically only one positive emo-

tion, namely happiness, Sauter and Scott (2007) presented five different positive

emotions for judgment through the vocal channel. Listeners in both Great Britain

CHAPTER 11 THE EFFECTS OF VOCAL CUES THAT ACCOMPANY SPOKEN WORDS 341

Copyright 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has

deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

and Sweden showed significant accuracy in distinguishing between amusement,

contentment, sensual pleasure, achievement/triumph, and relief. With respect to

cross-cultural comparisons, though, Sauter, Eisner, Ekman, and Scott (2010)

found that English participants recognized the nonbasic positive emotions of

achievement/triumph, relief, and sensual pleasure in the vocalizations of Himba

speakers, but that Himba participants did not recognize these emotions in the voca-

lizations of English speakers.

Neumann and Strack (2000) have further demonstrated that hearing voices

expressing different emotions also elicits the corresponding emotional feelings, as

reflected both in the listener’s own voice tone and in self-ratings of mood. These,

like other findings on “emotional contagion”(see Chapter 9), show that emotions

can be conveyed and shared outside of our conscious awareness (Chartrand &

Bargh, 1999).

The notion that a listener might respond with the same kind of emotion as

expressed in the speaker’s voice suggests a parallel situation that we experience

very often when we listen to music. Music can create potent emotional effects, and

indeed experimenters often use music to induce emotions in laboratory studies.

Some researchers have studied the accuracy of identifying emotions in music using

methods very similar to those used to study the communication of emotion in the

voice. For example, a performer might be asked to play a passage on the piano so

as to convey anger or happiness. Accuracy on the part of listeners can then be mea-

sured. Juslin and Laukka (2003) found, in reviewing these studies, that accuracy

for judging emotions in music is very similar to accuracy in judging emotions in

the voice, and furthermore that many of the same acoustic qualities account for

the effects. For example, tempo and intensity increase in anger and happiness in

both modalities, and variability in intensity is increased for anger and fear but is

decreased for sadness and tenderness in both modalities. As more specific evidence

of this, it appears that the “minor third”is important both in music and in the pitch

of the human voice for communicating the emotion state of sadness (Curtis &

Bharucha, 2010).

You may have wondered how it is possible to separate the nonverbal voice

qualities from the words being spoken in studies of vocal communication. Several

methods have been used to accomplish this essential goal, and accuracy may vary

somewhat depending on the method used (Juslin & Scherer, 2005). Some studies

use “meaningless content,”usually having the speaker say numbers or letters

while trying to convey various emotional states. As early as 1964, studies of this

type were conducted (Davitz, 1964). Speakers were instructed to express 10 differ-

ent feelings while reciting parts of the alphabet. These expressions were recorded

and played to judges, who were asked to identify the emotion being expressed

from the list of 10 emotions. Generally, emotions or feelings were communicated

far beyond chance expectation. It is difficult to tell, of course, whether the commu-

nicators were using the same tonal or vocal cues they would use in real-life emo-

tional reactions.

Other studies have controlled verbal cues by using “constant content,”in

which a speaker reads a standard passage while attempting to simulate different

emotional states. The underlying assumption is that the passage selected is neutral

in emotional tone. Another approach is to try to ignore content and focus attention

342 PART IV THE COMMUNICATORS’BEHAVIOR

Copyright 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has

deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

on the pauses, breathing rate, and other characteristics that suggest the person’s

emotional state. This method is frequently used in psychotherapy to identify signs

of anxiety.

Some studies have used electronic filtering to eliminate verbal content (Rogers,

Scherer, & Rosenthal, 1971). A low-pass filter will hold back the higher frequen-

cies of speech on which word recognition depends. The finished product sounds

much like someone talking on the other side of a wall. One common problem with

the electronically filtered technique is that some of the nonverbal vocal cues are elim-

inated in the filtering process, creating an artificial stimulus. Although some aspects

of vocal quality may be lost in the filtering process, a listener can still adequately per-

ceive pitch, rate, and loudness in order to judge emotional content. An advantage of

the filtering method is that naturally occurring speech can be used, in contrast to the

previous methods, which require the speaker to recite a standard text.

Filtered speech is the most popular method of making words unintelligible and

has produced some very intriguing results, some of which we summarize here. In a

study of doctors, Milmoe, Rosenthal, Blane, Chafetz, and Wolf (1967) found that

the more anger was perceived in the filtered voices of doctors talking about their

alcoholic patients, the less successful they were in getting those patients into ther-

apy. Later research verified that the tone of voice used when talking about patients

carries over into the way doctors talk to patients (Rosenthal, Vanicelli, & Blanck,

1984). Another study of physicians found that those who provided more medical

information to their patients—and were more competent, according to technical

standards for conducting a proper interview, diagnosing correctly, and so forth—

were those with the lowest ratings of boredom in short, filtered clips of their voices

(Hall, Roter, & Katz, 1987). It has also been found that a patient’s satisfaction

with a medical visit is greatest when the physician’s words are rated as more pleas-

ant and when the physician’s filtered voice tone is rated as more angry and anx-

ious. The combination of pleasant words and not-so-pleasant voice may convey a

desirable message of concern and involvement in the patient’s problems (Hall,

Roter, & Rand, 1981). Consistent with this finding is a study (Ambady et al.,

2002) that did not use filtered speech but rather ratings of surgeons’unfiltered

voices while talking to their patients, plus statistical controls for the verbal content.

That study found that surgeons whose voices were more dominant and less anx-

ious were more likely to have been sued by patients. In the most recent study of

this type, primary care physicians’voices were recorded during medical visits. Inde-

pendent listeners’ratings of their filtered speech revealed that physicians whose

patients were more satisfied had voices that were warm and supportive (Haskard,

Williams, DiMatteo, Heritage, & Rosenthal, 2008).

Another study analyzed the filtered speech of airline passengers talking to air-

port agents about their lost baggage (Scherer & Ceschi, 2000). In that study, the

number of “felt”and “unfelt”smiles (see Chapter 9) was counted, and judges

made ratings of the passengers’filtered speech. A higher frequency of “felt”smiles

indicative of genuine enjoyment (see Chapter 9) was related to less vocal anger, less

worry, and less resignation and to more good humor. Inauthentic or “unfelt”

smiles, on the other hand, were unrelated to the voice ratings. This and the preced-

ing studies support the validity of filtered speech ratings as an indicator of people’s

feelings and as a predictor of important outcomes in real-life situations.

CHAPTER 11 THE EFFECTS OF VOCAL CUES THAT ACCOMPANY SPOKEN WORDS 343

Copyright 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has

deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

Although, on average, accuracy for judging emotions from the voice is very high,

studies do vary in how accurately emotions are judged from voice cues. One reason

for this involves the differing methods by which such observations may be made, for

example, how long the voice samples are, which content-masking technique is used,

or how dissimilar the response alternatives are. Another reason is that speakers and

listeners vary widely in how accurately they can express and recognize different emo-

tions (see Chapter 3). For example, in the Davitz and Davitz (1959) study, one speak-

er’sexpressionswereidentifiedcorrectlyonly23percentofthetime,whereasanother

speaker communicated accurately over 50 percent of the time. In that study, like

many others, accuracy was defined in terms of how well listeners could identify the

emotion the speaker was asked to express. Listeners’accuracy in recognizing the

intended emotion varied widely, just as the speakers’sending accuracy did.

Thus, depending on the skills that individuals bring to a communication situa-

tion, they may or may not succeed in sending and receiving vocal emotion cues

well. Accuracy in judging emotions from the voice develops with age and appears

to be correlated with similar psychological characteristics as is skill in judging

other nonverbal cues (Baum & Nowicki, 1998; see Chapter 3). For example, chil-

dren may learn vocal expressions of emotion later than visual expressions of them

on the face or body of others (Nelson & Russell, 2011). Efforts are under way to

link various abilities, such as decoding vocal cues and emotional understanding, to

the broader notion of Emotional Intelligence (Thingujam, Laukka, & Elfenbein,

2012). On the flip side, deficits in more than one domain have been noted for vari-

ous disorders. For example, persons with autism and Asperger syndrome score

lower than comparison groups on judging both vocal and facial emotion cues

(Rutherford, Baron-Cohen, & Wheelwright, 2002), and the same is true for people

with anorexia nervosa (Kucharska-Pietura, Nilolaou, Masiak, & Treasure, 2004).

Another qualification to any statement about the voice’s overall ability to com-

municate emotions is that some emotions are easier to communicate than others.

For example, one study found that vocal anger was identified 63 percent of the

time, whereas vocal pride was identified correctly only 20 percent of the time.

Another study found that joy and hate were easily recognized in the voice, but

shame and love were the most difficult to recognize. In general, anger, joy, and

sadness are easier to recognize in the voice than fear and disgust (Banse & Scherer,

1996; Pittam & Scherer, 1993).

In a review of studies on accuracy of judging anxiety, Harrigan, Wilson, and

Rosenthal (2004) found that accuracy for judging state anxiety—that is, anxiety

being experienced at a given moment—was higher when judgments were based on

the voice alone than when they were based on video cues alone. However, for trait

anxiety, which is a personality tendency to be anxious, this was reversed—in fact,

listeners could not judge trait anxiety from the voice at all. Possibly, the immediate

physiological arousal associated with state anxiety produces easily noticed vocal

changes, such as tremor or speech errors.

In addition to demonstrating that emotions can be conveyed through the voice,

researchers have learned a great deal about how the voice conveys emotion.

Although efforts are under way to specify the acoustic features associated with

nonverbal vocalizations of specific emotion state (Sauter, Eisner, Calder, & Scott,

2010), there currently is no “dictionary”of emotion cues for the voice, any more

344 PART IV THE COMMUNICATORS’BEHAVIOR

Copyright 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has

deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

than there is for any nonverbal channel. You cannot identify key acoustic features

and then look them up in a book somewhere to see which emotion is being

expressed. Many factors enter into the total picture of emotional expression: con-

textual cues, the words being spoken, other nonverbal behaviors, individual differ-

ences in the people, and the fact that there is undoubtedly more than one way to

express a given emotion. With these qualifications in mind, we now summarize

key vocal cues associated with emotion.

Anxiety induced in a particular circumstance, or state anxiety, is often associ-

ated with nonfluencies or speech disruptions (Cook, 1965; Mahl, 1956; Siegman,

1987). “Non-Ah”speech disruptions are sentence changes (starting a sentence one

way and changing its form part way through), sentence incompletions (starting a

sentence and abandoning it to make a different point), stutters, repetitions, omis-

sions (of words or parts of words), tongue slips, and intruding incoherent sounds.

In contrast, a final kind of speech disruption, called “Ah”errors or filled pauses,

is not associated with anxiety or stress but seem rather to have other meanings

(see the section “Hesitations, Pauses, Silence, and Speech”later in this chapter).

Personality dimensions related to anxiety have also been studied in relation to

the production of speech disturbances. Harrigan, Suarez, and Hartman (1994)

obtained anxiety ratings of verbatim transcripts of the speech of individuals who

varied in state and trait anxiety as well as in repression, which is the need to deny

negative thoughts, impulses, or behaviors. Repressors’speech was judged to be the

most anxious, more so even than the speech of people who were highly trait-

anxious but not repressive. The authors attributed these effects to differences in

the frequency of speech disturbances among groups. Although repressors do not

view themselves as high on trait anxiety, their vocal behavior says otherwise. Per-

haps anxious people are more aware of their anxiety and can take steps to conceal

or control it, whereas repressive people are not aware of it, increasing the chances

that anxiety cues will “leak out”through the voice.

In an experiment on therapeutic treatment for social anxiety, those patients

who responded favorably to the intervention showed changes in key vocal variables

when asked to give a speech in front of a group—specifically in showing a lower

vocal pitch and greater continuity of speech, measured as having a smaller percent-

age of their speaking time spent in silence (Laukka et al., 2008). In general, stress

from any source makes the voice rise in pitch. In one of the earliest demonstrations,

Williams and Stevens (1972) analyzed recordings of the radio announcer who

described, live on the air, the horrifying explosion and burning of the hydrogen-

filled zeppelin Hindenburg at Lakehurst, New Jersey, in 1937. Comparison of his

voice before and immediately after the disaster showed the fundamental frequency

rose, with much less fluctuation in frequency.

Scherer’s work has encompassed a broad range of emotions. In a 1974 study, he

used artificial sounds, rather than spontaneous speech, to approach the question of

which vocal features are associated with which emotions. Listeners rated synthesized

tones on 10-point scales of pleasantness, potency, activity, and evaluation and indi-

cated whether the stimuli could or could not be an expression of interest, sadness,

fear, happiness, disgust, anger, surprise, elation, or boredom. Generally speaking,

tempo and pitch variation influence a wide range of judgments about emotional

expressions. Table 11-2 summarizes the results of several of Scherer’s studies.

CHAPTER 11 THE EFFECTS OF VOCAL CUES THAT ACCOMPANY SPOKEN WORDS 345

Copyright 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has

deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

Scherer (1986) expanded his predictions to include 12 different emotions—

such as irritation/cold anger, grief/desperation, elation/joy—and 18 different acous-

tic variables such as average fundamental frequency, variability in loudness, and

speech rate. In comparing these theoretical predictions to actual research, Scherer

found some impressive consistencies but also considerable variation, partly due to

great differences in how the studies were conducted and the number of studies con-

ducted. Joy/elation is well studied and is associated with higher average frequency,

or pitch; greater frequency range; greater frequency variability; higher average

intensity, or loudness; and faster rate. Consistent with the results for joy/elation,

the perception of how much affection is perceived in a speaker is positively pre-

dicted by how high-pitched and expressively variable the voice is (Floyd & Ray,

2003). Anger is conveyed by higher frequency and intensity, with a greater fre-

quency range and faster speech rate for “hot”anger. Fear is shown by higher

frequency, especially high-frequency energy, and faster speech rate. Sadness—at

least the quiet, resigned sort—involves lower average frequency and intensity, has

downward-directed contours, and is slower (Pittam & Scherer, 1993; Scherer,

Banse, Wallbott, & Goldbeck, 1991). Research is progressing on identifying emo-

tions from acoustic variables, so that computers may some day be able to recognize

vocal emotions almost as well as human listeners do (Banse & Scherer, 1996).

VOCAL CUES, COMPREHENSION, AND PERSUASION

In addition to its role in personality and emotional judgments, the voice also plays

a part in retention and attitude change, which has been primarily studied in public

speaking. For many years, introductory public speaking textbooks have stressed the

importance of delivery in the rhetorical situation. Delivery of the speech, rather

than speech content, was perhaps the first area of rhetoric to receive quantitative

TABLE 11-2 ACOUSTIC CONCOMITANTS OF EMOTIONAL DIMENSIONS

Amplitude Variation Moderate Pleasantness, Activity, Happiness

Pitch variation Moderate Anger, boredom, disgust, fear

Pitch contour Down Pleasantness, boredom, sadness

Up Potency, anger, fear, surprise

Pitch level Low Pleasantness, boredom, sadness

Tempo Slow Boredom, disgust, sadness

Fast Pleasantness, activity, potency, anger, fear

Duration (shape) Round Potency, boredom, disgust, fear, sadness

Filtration (lack of

overtones)

Low Sadness, pleasantness, boredom, happiness

Moderate Potency, activity

Tonality Atonal Disgust

Tonal-minor Anger

Rhythm Not rhythmic Boredom

Rhythmic Activity, fear, surprise

346 PART IV THE COMMUNICATORS’BEHAVIOR

Copyright 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has

deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

examination by speech researchers. Almost every study that isolated delivery as a

variable showed that delivery did matter. It had positive effects on the amount of

information remembered, the amount of attitude change elicited from the audience,

and the amount of credibility audience members attributed to the speaker.

Typical prescriptions for use of the voice in delivering a public speech include

the following:

1. Use variety in volume, rate, pitch, and articulation. The probability of desir-

able outcomes is less when we use a constant rate, volume, pitch, and articu-

lation. Being consistently overprecise may be as ineffective as being overly

sloppy in articulation.

2. Base decisions concerning loud–soft, fast–slow, precise–sloppy, or high–low on

what is appropriate for a given audience in a given situation.

3. Avoid excessive nonfluencies.

Regarding the third prescription, Engstrom (1994) found that participants’ratings

of an announcer’s competence dropped as the numbers of speech errors or nonflu-

ent speech made by the announcer increased.

VOCAL CUES,COMPREHENSION,AND RETENTION

Several studies tend to support the prescriptions for vocal variety in increasing

audience comprehension and retention. Woolbert (1920), in perhaps the earliest

study of this type, found that large variations of rate, force, pitch, and quality pro-

duced high audience retention when compared with a no-variation condition.

Glasgow (1952), using prose and poetry, established two conditions for study:

“good intonation”and “mono-pitch.”Multiple-choice tests, following exposure to

these differing vocal samples, showed that mono-pitch decreased comprehension by

more than 10 percent for both prose and poetry. Other research suggests that mod-

erately poor vocal quality and pitch patterns, nonfluencies, mispronunciation, and

even stuttering do not interfere significantly with comprehension, although listeners

generally find these conditions unpleasant (Kibler & Barker, 1972; Klinger, 1959;

Utzinger, 1952). All of these studies indicate that listeners are rather adaptable. It

probably takes constant and extreme vocal unpleasantries to affect comprehension,

and even then the listener may adapt. Poor vocal qualities probably contribute

more to a listener’s perception of the speaker’s personality or mood than to a

decrease in comprehension.

Children are required to understand what adults are referring to when they

speak about an object, such as a bunny. Do children use vocal cues to do this?

Berman, Chambers, and Graham (2010) research suggests that 4-year-olds do.

They conducted an experiment in which children heard an adult say a sentence,

such as “Look at the bunny,”in either a neutral, happy, or sad voice. Importantly,

there were three objects the children could look at: a distractor item, such as a

horse; a clean, intact bunny; or dirty, ragged, broken bunny. Results showed that

4-year-olds (but not 3-year-olds) visually fixated most often to the “broken”

bunny when they heard the sad voice, and most often to the “intact”bunny when

they heard the happy voice. These findings suggest that 4-year-old children were

using vocal cues to determine which object the speaker might be referring to in the

CHAPTER 11 THE EFFECTS OF VOCAL CUES THAT ACCOMPANY SPOKEN WORDS 347

Copyright 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has

deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

sentence “Look at the bunny.”It also appears that children as young as 15 months

are aware of when a person’s action does not match her preceding vocal cue

(Hoicka & Wang, 2011).

The study of speaking rate by itself yields additional evidence of listener flexi-

bility and the lack of impact on comprehension of seemingly poor voice-related

phenomena. The normal speaking rate is between 125 and 190 words per minute.

Some researchers believe comprehension begins to decrease once the rate exceeds

200 words per minute, but other experts in speeded speech place the level of signif-

icant decline in comprehension at between 250 and 275 words per minute. King

and Behnke (1989) point out that time-compressed speech adversely affects com-

prehensive listening—that is, understanding a message and remembering it for the

future—but does not adversely affect short-term listening (40 seconds or less) or

interpretive listening (reading between the lines) until very high levels of compres-

sion are reached, around 60 percent. Obviously, individual ability to process infor-

mation at rapid rates differs widely. The inescapable conclusion from studies of

speech rate, however, is that we can comprehend information at much more rapid

rates than we ordinarily are exposed to. In an experiment in which individual lis-

teners were allowed to vary the rates of presentation at will, the average choice was

1.5 times normal speed (Orr, 1968).

VOCAL CUES AND PERSUASION

What is the role of the voice in persuasive situations? It is clear we can communi-

cate various attitudes with our voice alone, for example, friendliness, hostility,

superiority, and submissiveness. Then what contribution, if any, do vocal cues

make toward changing people’s attitudes?

Mehrabian and Williams (1969) conducted an early series of studies on the

nonverbal correlates of intended and perceived persuasiveness. The following vocal

cues were associated with both “increasing intent to persuade and decoded as

enhancing the persuasiveness of a communication”: more speech volume, higher

speech rate, and less halting speech. This early study has been followed by many

studies on the relation of vocal cues to attitude change. The following vocal cues

are associated with greater perceived persuasiveness, credibility, competence, or

actual attitude change (Burgoon, Birk, & Pfau, 1990; Leigh & Summers, 2002).

However, an upper limit to the effective range on each of these variables is likely,

so that extremes would produce less, not more, credibility or persuasion.

•Fluent, nonhesitant speech

•Shorter response latencies, the pauses when speakers switch turns

•More pitch variation

•Louder voice

•Faster speech, as measured by words per minute or length of pauses

Of all these cues, faster speech has received the most attention in its relation to the

persuasion process (Miller, Maruyama, Beaber, & Valone, 1976; Street, Brady, &

Lee, 1984). Why is fast speech persuasive? Possibly, faster speakers seem more

credible because we assume they really know what they are talking about and

truly believe it themselves. But when listening to a faster-speaking persuader, we

348 PART IV THE COMMUNICATORS’BEHAVIOR

Copyright 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has

deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

may also be kept so busy processing the message that we have little chance to

develop counterarguments in our heads. Or we may be simply distracted by notic-

ing the faster speech, and this interferes with our ability to focus on the message

and develop counterarguments (Woodall & Burgoon, 1983). It is also important

to note that faster speech does not always produce more persuasion. Smith and

Shaffer (1991) found that faster speech increased persuasion when the message

was counterattitudinal—that is, when it favored a position that opposed the listen-

er’s preexisting attitude—but it decreased persuasion when the message was consis-

tent with the listener’s preexisting attitude.

At this point you may legitimately ask, “So what?”What if we know the

voice’s potential for eliciting various responses related to comprehension, attitude

change, and speaker credibility? Obviously in real-life situations, visual and verbal

cues, prior publicity and experiences with the speaker, and a multitude of other

interacting factors can reduce the importance of vocal cues. In short, specific non-

verbal cues do not operate in isolation in human interaction, as they do in the

experiments reported here. For the most part, we do not know what their role is

in context—that is, in combination with other cues and in settings outside the lab-

oratory. DeGroot and Motowidlo’s (1999) study takes us a step in that direction.

These investigators asked managers in companies to let themselves be interviewed

as though they were applying for their job. The managers’vocal cues were then

related to their actual supervisors’performance ratings of them and also to naive

observers’impressions of the taped interviews. A vocal composite that consisted of

faster speech rate, more pitch variability, fewer pauses, lower pitch, and less ampli-

tude variability was a significant predictor of both the performance ratings and the

favorability of listeners’reactions, which led the authors of the study to believe that

people who speak with this desirable set of vocal characteristics will be better able

to perform well on the job, owing to the favorability of people’s responses to them.

Burgoon and colleagues (1990) also examined a wide range of different cues, vocal

cues and those relating to face and body, in a study of credibility and persuasive-

ness. Controlling for other nonverbal behaviors, vocal fluency remained the stron-

gest predictor of judged competence, a dimension of credibility, and it was one of

the two strongest predictors of judged persuasiveness. Complementing these studies

of specific vocal cues, Ambady, Krabbenhoft, and Hogan (2006) used more global

ratings of electronically filtered speech to predict ratings of sales effectiveness, as

made by upper management, in a sample of sales managers. Even though the sales

managers’voice clips totaled only 1 minute each, ratings of qualities such as emo-

tion, empathy, cooperation, and enthusiasm as perceived in the voice were strongly

correlated with their superiors’positive evaluations of them.

VOCAL CUES AND TURN TAKING IN CONVERSATIONS

Thus far we have discussed the role of vocal cues in communicating interpersonal atti-

tudes, emotions, and information about thespeaker.Vocalcuesalsoplayanimpor-

tant role in managing the interaction and are part of a system of cues that helps us

structure our interactions—that is, who speaks when, to whom, and for how long.

Rules for turn taking, or “floor apportionment,”may have as much to do with

how a conversation is perceived as does the actual verbal content of the interaction

CHAPTER 11 THE EFFECTS OF VOCAL CUES THAT ACCOMPANY SPOKEN WORDS 349

Copyright 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has

deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

(Duncan, 1973; Wiemann & Knapp, 1975). You can probably recall instances

where turn-taking rules played a significant role in your responses: for example,

when a long-winded speaker would not let you get a word in edgewise; when a

passive interactant refused to “take the conversational ball”you offered; when

you were confronted with an “interrupter”; or those awkward moments when you

and the other person started talking simultaneously. Obviously, vocal cues are only

some of the signals we use to manage our turn taking (see Chapter 12). Altogether,

we do a remarkable job of negotiating turn taking through nonverbal, including

vocal, cues. Only rarely do we need to explicitly verbalize this information—for

example, “Okay, Lillian, I’m finished talking. Now it’s your turn to talk.”Our

use of these signals is mostly unconscious but conforms to definite rules of usage

nonetheless. These have been described extensively by Duncan and Fiske (1977) in

their analyses of two-person conversations held in a laboratory setting. Certain

cues were almost invariably present when smooth turn taking took place, five of

which were vocal, either verbal or nonverbal. None of these cues seems to be

more important than the others; rather it seems that a smooth switch is best pre-

dicted by the sheer number of these cues. In other words, redundancy—sending

several equivalent-meaning cues simultaneously—promotes smooth regulation of

conversation. These cues included the speaker’s pitch or a drawl at the end of a

unit of speech, the grammatical completion of a unit of speech, and the use of cer-

tain routine verbal phrases. The next sections elaborate on these and other turn-

regulating behaviors identified in research (Cappella, 1985; Rosenfeld, 1987).

TURN YIELDING

To yield a turn means to signal you are finished and that the other person can start

talking. Sometimes we do this by asking a question, causing the pitch to rise at the

end of our comment. Another unwritten rule most of us follow is that questions

require, or often demand, answers. We also can drop our pitch, sometimes with a

drawl on the last syllable, when finishing a declarative statement that concludes

our intended turn. If the cues are not sufficient for the other person to start talking,

we may have to add a trailer on the end. The trailer may be silence or may take the

form of a filled pause, for example, “ya know,”“so, ah,”or “or something.”The

filled pauses reiterate the fact that you are yielding, and they fill a silence that

might otherwise indicate the other’s insensitivity to your signals or your own

inability to make them clear.

TURN REQUESTING

We can also use vocal cues to show others that we want to say something.

Although an audible inspiration of breath alone may not be a sufficient cue, it

does help signal turn requesting. The mere act of interrupting or simultaneous talk-

ing may signal an impatience to get the speaking turn. Sometimes you can inject

vocalizations during normal pausing of the other speaker. These “stutter starts”

may be the beginning of a sentence (“I…I…I…”) or merely vocal buffers (“Ah

…Er …Ah …”). Another method for requesting a turn is to assist the other per-

son in finishing quickly. This can be done by increasing the rapidity of our

350 PART IV THE COMMUNICATORS’BEHAVIOR

Copyright 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has

deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

responses, much like the increased rapidity of the head nods when we are anxious

to leave a situation in which another person has the floor. Normally, back-channel

cues, such as “Uh-huh,”“Yeah,”and “Mmm-hmm,”are used to encourage the

other to continue speaking and to signal attentiveness. However, when these cues

are used rapidly, the message can be “Get finished so I can talk.”

TURN MAINTAINING

Sometimes we want to keep the floor. It may be to show our status or to avoid

unpleasant feedback, or perhaps it reflects some exaggerated sense of the impor-

tance of our own words and ideas. Common vocal cues in these instances may

include the following:

1. Increasing volume and rate when turn-requesting cues are sensed

2. Increasing the frequency of filled pauses

3. Decreasing the frequency and duration of silent pauses

Although Lalljee and Cook’s (1969) research does not support the use of pauses

for control, Rochester (1973) cites several studies that support the following

conclusions:

1. More filled pauses and fewer silent pauses are found in dialogue than

monologue.

2. More filled pauses and fewer silent pauses are not found when people want to

break off speaking.

3. More filled pauses and fewer silent pauses are more likely when the speaker

lacks visual means of controlling the conversation, as on the telephone.

TURN DENYING

In some instances, we may want the other person to keep talking—to deny the turn

when offered. The back-channel cues we noted earlier may keep the other person

talking by giving reinforcement for what is being said. The rate with which these

cues are delivered, however, is probably slower than when we are requesting a

turn. And, of course, simply remaining silent may dramatically communicate a

turn denial. Silence and pauses are the subjects of our next section.

We wish to reiterate that conversational regulation is a delicate matter involv-

ing a complex coordination of verbal behavior, vocal behavior, gaze, and body

movement. Research finds that even if we would predict a turn switch based on

words and voice, a switch is very unlikely if the speaker looks away from the lis-

tener during the likely switching point or engages in a hand gesture that is main-

tained or not returned to a resting state.

HESITATIONS, PAUSES, SILENCE, AND SPEECH

Spontaneous speech is actually highly fragmented and discontinuous. Goldman-

Eisler (1968) said that even when speech is at its most fluent, two-thirds of spoken

language comes in chunks of less than six words, which strongly suggests that the

CHAPTER 11 THE EFFECTS OF VOCAL CUES THAT ACCOMPANY SPOKEN WORDS 351

Copyright 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has

deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

concept of fluency in spontaneous speech is an illusion. Pauses range in length from

milliseconds to minutes. Pauses are subject to considerable variation based on indi-

vidual differences, the kind of verbal task, the amount of spontaneity, and the pres-

sures of the particular social situation.

LOCATION OR PLACEMENT OF PAUSES

Pauses and hesitations are not randomly distributed throughout the speech stream (

Goldman-Eisler, 1968; Merlo & Barbosa, 2010). Goldman-Eisler (1968, p. 13)

outlined places where pauses do occur—at both grammatical and nongrammatical

junctures.

Grammatical

1. “Natural”punctuation points, for example, the end of a sentence.

2. Immediately preceding a conjunction whether (a) coordinating, such as and,

but,neither,therefore; or (b) subordinating, such as if,when,while,as,

because.

3. Before relative and interrogative pronouns, for example, who,which,what,

why,whose.

4. When a question is direct or implied: “I don’t know whether I will.”

5. Before all adverbial clauses of time (when), manner (how), and place (where).

6. When complete parenthetical references are made: “You can tell that the house—

the one on the corner—is falling into disrepair.”

Nongrammatical

1. Where a gap occurs in the middle or at the end of a phrase: “In each of …the

cells of the body ….”

2. Where a gap occurs between words and phrases repeated: (a) “The question of

the …of the economy”and (b) “This attitude is narrower than that …that of

many South Africans.”

3. Where a gap occurs in the middle of a verbal compound: “We have …taken

issue with them and they are …resolved to oppose us.”

4. Where the structure of a sentence is disrupted by a reconsideration or a false

start: “I think the problem of France is the …what we have to remember

about France is ….”

Analysis of spontaneous speech shows that only 55 percent of the pauses fall into

the grammatical category, whereas oral readers of prepared texts are extremely

consistent in pausing at clause and sentence junctures.

TYPES OF PAUSES

The two major types of pauses are the unfilled, silent pause and the filled pause.

Afilled pause is filled with some type of phonation such as “um”or “uh.”Avariety

of sources associate filled pauses with a range of generally undesirable character-

istics. Some people associate filled pauses and repetitions with emotional arousal;

some feel that filled pauses may reduce anxiety but jam cognitive processes.

Goldman-Eisler (1961) found, in four different studies, that unfilled pausing time

352 PART IV THE COMMUNICATORS’BEHAVIOR

Copyright 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has

deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

was associated with “superior (more concise) stylistic and less probable linguistic

formulations,”whereas higher rates of filled pauses were linked to “inferior stylis-

tic achievement (long-winded statement) of greater predictability.”Livant (1963)

found the time required to solve addition problems was significantly greater when

the subject filled his pauses than when he was silent. Several experimenters reached

similar conclusions: When speakers fill pauses, they also impair their performance.

Thus in a heated discussion, you may maintain control of the conversation by fill-

ing the pauses, but you may also decrease the quality of your contribution. How-

ever, too many filled or unfilled pauses may receive negative evaluations from

listeners (Christenfeld, 1995). Lalljee (1971) found that too many unfilled pauses

by the speaker caused listeners to perceive the speaker as anxious, angry, or con-

temptuous; too many filled pauses evoked perceptions of the speaker as anxious or

bored. Although these studies suggest that filled pauses are generally to be avoided,

research also finds that in university lecturers, their use is correlated with more com-

plex thought processes and use of a larger vocabulary (Schachter, Christenfeld,

Ravina, & Bilous, 1991; Schachter, Rauscher, Christenfeld, & Crone, 1994).

Filled pauses show up, interestingly, much more in the speech of men than that

of women (Hall, 1984). We might think of men as more assertive in general, but

Siegman (1987) observed that more filled pauses are usually associated with “cau-

tious and hesitant speech”(p. 398). Perhaps men are more socially uncomfortable

than women are. It may be, however, that filled pauses are serving another func-

tion altogether—keeping the speaker’s turn from being taken over by the other per-

son, which may be of more concern for men.

REASONS WHY PAUSES OCCUR

During the course of spontaneous speech, we are confronted with situations that

require decisions as to what to say and what lexical or structural form to put it in.

One school of thought relates hesitancy in speech to the uncertainty of predicting

the cognitive and lexical activity while speaking. The speaker may be reflecting on

decisions about the immediate message or may even be projecting into the past or

future—that is, “I don’t think she understood what I said earlier”or “If she says

no, what do I say then?”Thus the assumption is that these hesitation pauses are

actually delays due to competing processes taking place in the brain. Goldman-

Eisler indeed found that pause time while interpreting cartoons was twice as long

as while describing them. It also was observed that with each succeeding trial (i.e.,

with increasing reductions in spontaneity) there was a decline in pausing. Recent

research continues to support the theory that longer speech latencies and a rela-

tively large number of pauses are sometimes due to the complexity of the message

being formulated (Greene & Ravizza, 1995).

It has been argued that speakers use fillers, such as “uh”and “um,”to signal

that the listener should expect either a minor or major delay in speaking (Clark &

Fox Tree, 2002). However, recent work by O’Connell and Kowal (2005) has called

this into question, finding that such fillers were not usually followed by silent

pauses.

Another possible explanation for some pausing behavior involves what is

described as “disruption behavior.”Instead of representing time for planning, the

CHAPTER 11 THE EFFECTS OF VOCAL CUES THAT ACCOMPANY SPOKEN WORDS 353

Copyright 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has

deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

pause may indicate a disruption due to an emotional state that may have developed

from negative feedback or time pressures. These disruptions may take many forms:

fears about the subject matter under discussion, desire to impress the listener with

verbal or intellectual skills, pressure to perform other tasks simultaneously, or pres-

sure to produce verbal output immediately.

Pauses may also be used to help children learn about turn taking in conversa-

tions. Bergeson, Miller, and McCune (2006) observed that mothers used longer

pauses when talking with older as opposed to younger infants, thus giving them

extra time to respond.

INFLUENCE AND COORDINATION WITHIN THE DYAD

Thus far we have considered hesitations and pauses primarily from the speaker’s

standpoint. Now we consider the interaction process and the effect of one person’s

interpersonal timing on another. For many years, Chapple (1949, 1953; Chapple

& Sayles, 1961) explored the rhythms of dialogue, that is, the degree of synchrony

found in the give-and-take of conversations. This involved noting who talks, when,

and for how long. He developed a standardized interview in which the interviewer

alternates “normal”attentive responding with silences and, later, interruptions. As

you might suspect, there are many reactions. Some people respond to a nonre-

sponse, or silence, by speeding up; others match the nonresponse; and most try

some combination of the two.

Matarazzo’s studies of interviewing behavior found most latencies of response

were between 1 and 2 seconds, with the mean about 1.7 seconds (Matarazzo,

Wiens, & Saslow, 1965). Matarazzo also demonstrated response matching,

showing how the interviewer can also control the length of utterance by increasing

the length of his own utterances. As the interviewer extended the length of his

responses, a corresponding increase in the length of responses from the interviewee

resulted. In the same manner, there must be times when pauses beget pauses.

The interviewer also can control response duration by head nodding or saying

“Mmm-hmm”during the interviewee’s response. This demonstrates that these

back-channel responses do indeed encourage a speaker to continue speaking.

SILENCE

Most of the hesitations and pauses we have discussed are relatively short. Some-

times silences may be extended. They may be imposed by the nature of the environ-

ment, for example, in churches, libraries, museums, courtrooms, or hospitals; they

may be imposed for the duration of a given event, as at a funeral or when singing

the national anthem; or they may be self-imposed, such as remaining quiet in the

woods to hear other sounds, or enjoying with a lover the mutual closeness that

silence may bring. Silence can mean virtually anything, and it is charged with

those words that have just been exchanged; words that have been exchanged in

the past; words that have not or will not be said but are fantasized; and words

that may actually be said in the future. For these reasons, it would be absurd to

provide a list of meanings for silence. The meaning of silence, like the meaning of

words, can be deduced only after careful analysis of the communicators, subject

354 PART IV THE COMMUNICATORS’BEHAVIOR

Copyright 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has

deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

matter, time, place, culture, and so forth. For example, silence in response to a rhe-

torical question from a professor to a student means something different from one

person’s silence in response to another’s question during a brief encounter on the

street (“Hey, pardon me, do you know what time it is?”).

Some of the many interpersonal functions served by silence include the

following:

•Punctuation or accenting, drawing attention to certain words or ideas

•Evaluating, providing judgments of another’s behavior, showing favor or dis-

favor, agreement or disagreement, or attacking (e.g., not responding to a com-

ment, greeting, or letter)

•Revelation, making something known, or hiding something

•Expression of emotions: the silence of disgust, sadness, fear, anger, or love

•Mental activity, showing thoughtfulness and reflection or ignorance (Bruneau,

1973; Jaworski, 1993; Jensen, 1973)

There are social and emotional consequences associated with silence. Silence in

response to another person’s question, such as “I’m lost. Do you live around

here?”, is likely to be viewed as inappropriate (e.g., Brown & Levinson, 1987).

Koudenburg, Postmes, and Gordijin (2011) conducted an experiment in which par-

ticipants imagined being a person whose statement was followed by silence (or not)

from others in a videotaped group interaction. They found that silence triggered

greater feelings of being distressed, afraid, and hurt as well as feelings of rejection

in participants. It seems that we are sensitive to cues of possible social exclusion,

one of which appears to be silence from others.

SUMMARY

This chapter should leave you with the overall

impression that vocal cues frequently play a

major role in determining responses in human

communication situations. You should be quick,

however, to challenge the cliché that vocal cues

only concern how something is said—frequently

they are what is said. What is said might be an

attitude (“I like you”or “I’m superior to you”); it

might be an emotion; it might be the coordina-

tion and management of the conversation; or it

might be the presentation of some aspect of your

personality, background, or physical features.

You should also recognize the important role

vocal stereotypes play in determining responses.

Whether judges are trying to estimate your occu-

pation, sociability, race, degree of introversion,

body type, or any of various other qualities

about you, they will be very apt to respond to

well-learned stereotypes. These stereotypes may

not accurately describe you, but they will be

influential in the interaction between you and

others. Though research has demonstrated con-

siderable interjudge agreement, so far it is diffi-

cult to identify many personality traits that seem

to be judged with consistent accuracy. Although

it is not uncommon for a person speaking a dia-

lect other than one’s own to be perceived nega-

tively, speakers who try to correct for speech

differences, and severely violate expectations for

their speech, may also be perceived negatively.

Accurate judgments—that is, beyond chance

levels—of age, sex, and status from vocal cues

alone tend to be fairly consistently reported in

the literature. Furthermore, often we are able to

identify specific speakers from voice alone.

Although studies of judgments of emotions

from vocal cues have used different methods, dif-

ferent emotions, listeners with differing sensitiv-

ity, and speakers with differing abilities for

portraying emotions, the results reveal that

CHAPTER 11 THE EFFECTS OF VOCAL CUES THAT ACCOMPANY SPOKEN WORDS 355

Copyright 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has

deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

people can make quite accurate judgments of

emotions and feelings from wordless vocal mes-

sages. Some indications are that moderately poor

vocal behaviors do not interfere with a listener’s

comprehension of a message, and that if we use

variety in our volume, pitch, and rate, we may

increase our chances of achieving audience com-

prehension in public speeches. Unchanging, con-

stant vocal behavior, particularly at the extremes,

may be less advantageous in achieving audience

comprehension.

Research also suggests that the voice may be

important in some aspects of persuasion. More

fluency, higher rate, more volume, and less halt-

ing speech seem related to intent to persuade and

perceived persuasiveness. We know that the cred-

ibility of the speaker plays an important role in

persuasion in some situations. Some decisions

concerning credibility—such as dimensions of

trustworthiness, dynamism, likableness, and

competency—are made from word-free samples

of the voice alone.

Vocal cues also help us manage the give-

and-take of speaking turns. In turn yielding,

turn requesting, turn maintaining, and turn deny-

ing, we use vocal cues to make our intentions

clear.

We also discussed the important role of hesi-

tations or pauses in spontaneous speech. Such

pauses, ordinarily between 1 and 2 seconds

long, may be greatly influenced by the other

interactant, the topic being discussed, and the

nature of the social situation. Pauses may be the

overt manifestation of time used to make deci-

sions about what to say and how to say it, or

they may represent disruptions in the speech

process.

Taken together, these findings show that vocal

cues alone can give much information about a

speaker, and our total reaction to another indi-

vidual is at least somewhat colored by our reac-

tions to these vocal cues. Our perceptions of

verbal cues combine with other verbal and non-

verbal stimuli to mold conceptions used as a

basis for communicating.

QUESTIONS FOR DISCUSSION

1. Consider stereotypes you have about the

voice—for example, about high or low voices,

fast or slow voices, voices with different

accents, and so forth. Discuss what truth you

think there is to the stereotypes, based on as

many real examples as you can think of.

2. Analyze the phenomenon of sarcasm in terms

of the voice as well as the other cues that

might be associated with it. Act out a variety

of different comments in a sarcastic manner,

and specify the cues you use.

3. Review the different methods for making

voices free of verbal content by applying

content-masking techniques. Why does the

chapter argue that doing this does not free

the voice of content?

4. Theorists argue that some nonverbal chan-

nels are easier than others to self-monitor

and control. Compare the vocal channel to

the face and body channels. How would

you rank these three channels in terms of

how easy they are to monitor and control?

Why?

5. Spend some time paying special attention to

how you use vocal cues to identify a person’s

characteristics, such as social class, educa-

tion, sexual orientation, or personality.

A good way to do this would be to sit in a

public place and listen to people speaking

whom you are not looking at. Or you could

listen to the television without looking at it.

Analyze the cues you use. Do you have any

sense of whether your judgments are correct?

6. Use the following link to discover how

speech accents vary by region in the United

States. You will be able to test your ability to

identify the region of the United States a

speaker is from on the basis of his or her

accent: www.sporcle.com/games/druhutch/

americanaccents

356 PART IV THE COMMUNICATORS’BEHAVIOR

Copyright 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has

deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

COMMUNICATING

IMPORTANT MESSAGES

[PART V]

Our book concludes with a discussion of how the various nonverbal signals we

have discussed thus far combine as communicators pursue critical and familiar out-

comes. Chapter 12 focuses on how nonverbal signals help us effectively communi-

cate and interpret intimacy, power, involvement, identity, and deception in daily

interaction. Chapter 13 examines nonverbal messages in advertising, politics, edu-

cation, culture, health care, and technology. Together, these two chapters show

the importance of understanding nonverbal behavior in effectively managing life’s

most important tasks.

357

Copyright 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has

deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

Copyright 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has

deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

USING NONVERBAL BEHAVIOR IN

DAILY INTERACTION

[CHAPTER12]

Try to imagine yourself telling a high school student how to be a successful college stu-

dent. Your approach probably would break the process into its component parts:

social life, or dating and partying; intellectual life, which might include studying, tak-

ing notes, and relating to professors; organizational life, that is, what campus and

social groups to join; financial life, or how to get by with little money; and so on. As

informative as your explanations and advice in these separate areas may be, you

know they are not enough. You also need to point out how these parts go together to

create complex situations; for example, a person you desire has agreed to go out with

you, but the date will cost a lot of money, and it will occur the night before a big test.

In the same way, this book is designed to make you more knowledgeable about

human interaction and about nonverbal behavior in particular. The preceding chapters

focused on individual parts of the total system: eyes, face, gestures, physical appearance,

voice, and so forth. In this chapter, we show how these component parts combine to

achieve the various communicative outcomes that we strive for in our day-to-day lives.

To fully understand any process, we continually must look at the isolated parts

that make up the system and at how they combine to achieve the system’s purpose.

Throughout this book, we have made occasional references to multisignal effects—

for example, the role of verbal behavior in judgments of physical attractiveness and

the close interrelationship of gestures with verbal behavior. Edward T. Hall, who

coined the term proxemics, currently used to identify the study of distance and

space, believed we have to consider 19 different behavioral signals to fully under-

stand proximity in human transactions. In this chapter, we look at how various

Nothing in nature is isolated; nothing is without connection to the whole.

—Goethe

359

Copyright 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has

deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

nonverbal signals help us accomplish the goals of communicating intimacy, communi-

cating status and power, managing the interaction, communicating our identity, and

deceiving others. These outcomes, along with expressing emotion and achieving

understanding, seem to adequately cover the most critical interaction goals.

1

COMMUNICATING INTIMACY

Scholars have studied nonverbal signals associated with intimacy from four different

perspectives, and we will discuss each of them: the display behaviors associated with

romantic courtship, courtship behaviors displayed in nonromantic situations, nonver-

bal behaviors that signal closeness with strangers and acquaintances, and nonverbal

behaviors that signal closeness in more well-established intimate relationships.

COURTSHIP BEHAVIOR

We know that some men and women can exude messages such as “I’m available,”

“I’m knowledgeable,”or “I want you”without saying a word. And it appears that

we have the ability to detect these cues in them, especially those given off by men.

Place, Todd, Penke, and Asendorpf (2009) found that observers of speed-dating

videos were able to detect men’s romantic interest in women better than women’s

romantic interest in men.

There are popular books available for those who seek to improve their ability to

attract the romantic attention of others via nonverbal signals (Strauss, 2005). These

signals include a thrust of the hips, touch gestures, extra-long eye contact, carefully

looking at the other’s body, showing excitement and desire in fleeting facial expres-

sions, and gaining close proximity. When subtle enough, these moves will allow

both parties to deny that either had committed themselves to a courtship ritual.

Academic research focusing on flirtation behavior between men and women in

singles bars, hotel cocktail lounges, and bars in restaurants provides some observa-

tional data on the role of nonverbal signals in the courtship process (Grammer,

Kruck, Juette, & Fink, 2000; McCormick & Jones, 1989; Moore, 2010; Perper &

Weis, 1987). Most of the early signaling seems to be performed by women, and

females are the “selectors”who attract attention by displaying subtle nonverbal

signals that indicate a readiness for contact. The most frequently observed

1

These goals have been identified in several sources. See the following: Patterson, M. L. (1983). Non-

verbal behavior: A functional perspective. New York: Springer-Verlag; Siegman, A. W., & Feldstein, S.

(Eds.). (1985). Multichannel integrations of nonverbal behavior. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum; and Burgoon,

J. K., & Hoobler, G. D. (2002). Nonverbal signals. In M. L. Knapp & J. A. Daly (Eds.), Handbook of

interpersonal communication (pp. 240–299). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. The goals of communicating

emotion, understanding, and persuasion are not covered in this chapter, because it would duplicate too

much material in other chapters. See especially Chapter 9 and Chapter 11 for the expression of emo-

tion; Chapter 3 and Chapter 7 for achieving understanding; and Chapter 11 for persuasion cues. For

multisignal treatments of persuasion, see Burgoon, J. K., Birk, T., & Pfau, M. (1990). Nonverbal beha-

viors, persuasion, and credibility. Human Communication Research, 17, 140–169; and Burgoon, J. K.

(2002). Nonverbal influence. In J. P. Dillard & M. Pfau (Eds.), The persuasion handbook: Develop-

ments in theory and practice (pp. 445–473). Thousands Oaks, CA: Sage. Also see Brinol, P., & Petty,

R. E. (2003). Overt head movements and persuasion: A self-validation analysis. Journal of Personality

and Social Psychology, 84, 1123–1139.

360 PART V COMMUNICATING IMPORTANT MESSAGES

Copyright 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has

deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

behaviors are three types of eye gaze: a room-encompassing glance; a short, darting

glance at a specific person (see Figure 12-1); and a fixed gaze of at least 3 seconds

at a specific other. Other signals include smiling at a specific other person; laughing

and giggling in response to another’s comments; tossing one’s head, a movement

sometimes accompanied by stroking of the hair; grooming, primping, and adjusting

clothes; caressing objects, such as keys or a glass; a “solitary dance,”that is, keep-

ing time to the music with visible movements; and a wide variety of accidental

touching of some specific other. Researchers did not specifically examine the type

of clothing worn in these studies, nor did they examine the tone of voice used;

both are likely to be influential flirtation behaviors. In an effort to determine

whether these behaviors were more likely to occur in a context where signaling

interest in and attraction to others was expected, the researchers observed the

behavior of women and men in snack bars, meetings, and libraries. None of these

contexts revealed anything close to the number of flirting behaviors found in bars.

Are there male behaviors that increase a man’s chances of being selected by a

female in a context like this? A study by Renninger, Wade, and Grammer (2004)

found that females gave preferential attention to males whose nonverbal behavior

signaled positive intentions—interest shown by glances, openness shown by few

closed-body movements—and also displayed their status, shown by maximizing

the surrounding space and unreciprocated touching of other males.

Does courtship proceed according to a defined sequence of steps? Several stud-

ies suggest it does. Nielsen (1962), citing Birdwhistell, described a “courtship

FIGURE 12-1

A woman using her eyes to flirt with a man.

Comstock/Photos.com

CHAPTER 12 USING NONVERBAL BEHAVIOR IN DAILY INTERACTION 361

Copyright 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has

deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

dance”of the American adolescent. Later, Givens (1978b) and Perper (1985)

described the courtship process in terms of phases. First comes the approach

phase, in which the two people come into the same general area. The second

phase involves acknowledging the other’s attention and turning toward the other

as an invitation to begin talking. Nonverbal behavior during the interaction phase

involves an increasing amount of fleeting, nonintimate touching and a gradually

increasing intensity in gaze. The sexual arousal phase consists of more intimate

touching, kissing, and other affectionate behaviors, and the resolution phase is

characterized by intercourse. Obviously, either person can short-circuit the process

or skip a step in the sequence at any point.

When courtship is successful, sexual activity is likely to occur at some point.

Whereas women use nonverbal cues to start the courtship process, men apparently

are more involved in those steps leading to intercourse (Moore, 2010). However,

the nonverbal cues that men use successfully to start a sexual relationship with

women are not fully understood. Once in a committed relationship, young men are

more likely to initiate sexual activity than young women, and men do so more with

their nonverbal behavior than their verbal behavior (Vannier & O’Sullivan, 2011).

There are several limitations to the research on the courtship process that need

to be addressed:

1. Little is understood about the nonverbal courtship signals or behaviors of

homosexuals. As would be expected, touching, smiling, and eye contact are

used to signal sexual attraction among lesbians (Rose & Zand, 2002). How-

ever, it is not clear how nonverbal cues are used to successfully negotiate the

various stages of courtship, from relationship initiation to later sexual activity

among gays and lesbians.

2. In the 21st century, people are turning more and more to alternative forms of

courtship, such as online dating services (e.g., eHarmony) (Whitty, 2009). Men

and women seeking romance must signal their interest in another person and

respond to the romantic overtures of others over cyberspace where the use of

nonverbal cues is often limited to profile images and emoticons (e.g., smileys).

Two people may be actively courting each other before they have had a chance

to gaze, smile, or touch each other in the real world. It is not known if some

of the traditional steps in the real-world courtship process are altered because

of prior online involvement. For example, would the nonverbal signals of

interest be stronger or weaker for online daters actually meeting each other for

the first time relative to individuals meeting for the first time without having

had any prior online contact?

3. Another limitation concerns the lack of attention to the fluctuating nature of

some nonverbal courtship cues. Research has shown that women’s scent may

change during ovulation, leading to potential changes in men’s courtship-

related behavior. In such studies, men are exposed to samples of women’s

body odor on low- versus high-fertility days (i.e., the women are currently

ovulating). Results show that men rate the high-fertility odors as more attrac-

tive and also experience an uptick in their testosterone levels, both of which

could motivate greater courtship intentions on their part (Gildersleeve,

Haselton, Larson, & Pillsworth, 2011; Miller & Maner, 2010). One intriguing

possibility is that, when women are most fertile, their odor cues might increase

362 PART V COMMUNICATING IMPORTANT MESSAGES

Copyright 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has

deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

men’s willingness to pursue them when they are also showing other signs that

they desire interpersonal contact from men. This fluctuating courtship cue

might be beneficial to the extent that it increases women’s chances of reprodu-

cing. In line with this, Haselton, Mortezaie, Pillsworth, Bleske-Rechek, and

Frederick (2007) found that women in relationships appear to dress more

attractively when they are ovulating. Finally, men also may shift their court-

ship behavior, such as their use of language, to appear more attractive when

they are around an ovulating woman (Coyle & Kaschak, 2012).

QUASI-COURTSHIP BEHAVIOR

Scheflen (1965) identified some behaviors he called quasi-courtship behaviors,

meaning they could be used during courtship, but they could also be used to com-

municate affiliative interest of a nonromantic type. Such behaviors may also be

designed to invite affirmations of one’s sexual appeal or attractiveness. Depending

on the context, then, a particular cluster of behaviors could be considered friendly,

flirting, or seductive. Misunderstandings associated with such behaviors are at the

heart of many cases of sexual harassment and date rape. It is not uncommon, for

example, for men to perceive more sexual intent in the friendly behavior of

women than women see in the friendly behavior of men (Abbey & Melby, 1986;

Egland, Spitzberg, & Zormeier, 1996; Koeppel, Montagne-Miller, O’Hair, &

Cody, 1993; Simpson, Gangestad, & Nations, 1996).

Quasi-courtship behavior has some elements of courting, or relating to another

for romantic purposes, but these behaviors are qualified by some other co-occurring

behavior that says, “This is not courtship even though you see some similarities to

that behavior.”In some cases, quasi-courtship behaviors are used to build rapport;

at other times, they are a form of play. The overall message is one of affiliation.

Scheflen (1965) made sound films of numerous therapeutic encounters, business

meetings, and conferences. His content analysis of these films led him to conclude

that consistent and patterned quasi-courtship behaviors were exhibited in these set-

tings. He then developed a set of classifications for such behaviors:

•Courtship readiness defines a category of behaviors characterized by constant

manifestations of high muscle tone, reduced eye bagginess and jowl sag, a

lessening of slouch and shoulder hunching, and decreasing belly sag.

•Preening behavior is exemplified by things such as stroking the hair; putting

on makeup; glancing in the mirror; rearranging clothes in a sketchy fashion,

such as leaving buttons open, and adjusting suit coats; tugging at socks; and

readjusting tie knots.

•Positional cues are reflected in seating arrangements that suggest, “We’re not

open to interaction with anyone else.”Arms, legs, and torsos are arranged to

inhibit others from entering conversations.

•Actions of appeal or invitation include flirtatious glances, gaze holding, rolling

of the pelvis, crossing the legs to expose a thigh, exhibiting the wrists or

palms, protruding the breasts, and others.

Others have discussed Scheflen’s positional cues in terms of who is excluded and

who is included. The positioning of arms and legs in Figure 12-2 clearly suggests

“We’re not open to others”(in a) and “I’m with you—not him”(in b).

CHAPTER 12 USING NONVERBAL BEHAVIOR IN DAILY INTERACTION 363

Copyright 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has

deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

LIKING BEHAVIOR OR IMMEDIACY

In the late 1960s and early 1970s, Mehrabian (1972b) conducted a number of

experimental studies of what he called immediacy, that is, behaviors that indicate

greater closeness or liking. His research identified the following cluster of signals

that distinguish a positive evaluation of an interaction partner from a negative one:

•More forward lean

•Closer proximity

•More eye gaze

•More openness of arms and body

•More direct body orientation

•More touching

•More postural relaxation

•More positive facial and vocal expressions

A lower frequency of these behaviors, particularly when they are expected, or the

manifestation of opposite behaviors tended to be associated with less intimacy or

even disliking. While confirming the behaviors Mehrabian linked to immediacy,

Ray and Floyd (2006) also found one form of positive vocal expression, vocal vari-

ety, but it is primarily limited to female behavior. Mimicking another’s behavior

may be another way of infusing a greater sense of affiliation in an interaction,

although this would not necessarily be a conscious strategy on the part of the

mimicker (Guéguen & Martin, 2009).

Some combinations of Mehrabian’s immediacy behaviors also have been found

when people are trying to communicate support (Trees, 2000) and politeness (Trees &

Manusov, 1998). And as we note in Chapter 13, a teacher’s immediacy beha-

viors with his or her students have been linked to positive student attitudes, both

toward the instructor and the course, as well as some measures of student learning

(Rodriguez, Plax, & Kearney, 1996).

BEING CLOSE IN CLOSE RELATIONSHIPS

The work by Mehrabian and others provides a useful perspective for understanding

how positive and negative evaluations of interaction partners are associated with

clusters of nonverbal signals. In theory, the greater the number of signals activated,

the more powerful the message. Immediacy cues can instruct us on what signals to

FIGURE 12-2

Positional cues.

ba

364 PART V COMMUNICATING IMPORTANT MESSAGES

Copyright 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has

deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

exhibit or look for in our culture during initial interactions with people we do not

know very well. They do not, however, tell us much about how friends or lovers

communicate intimacy. Close relationships to spouses, for example, cannot be

accurately judged by the amount of time spent leaning forward with more direct

body orientation, in close proximity with more eye gaze, and so on (Andersen,

Guerrero, & Jones, 2006; Guerrero & Floyd, 2006; Manusov, Floyd, & Kerssen-

Griep, 1997). Because much of this stereotypical immediacy behavior has presumably

happened early on in these relationships, it needs to be displayed only on certain

occasions once the relationship has become an intimate one. There are times in

established relationships when it is imperative to communicate closeness with

utmost clarity, especially when the relationship has been threatened. At such times,

we are likely to see again the cluster of immediacy signals by the partner or part-

ners who wish to offset any threat to their current level of intimacy. Partners in an

established close relationship also use these stereotyped signals of intimacy when

they want to communicate the closeness of their intimate relationship to outsiders,

who may not understand the subtle and sometimes idiosyncratic ways intimates

communicate their intimacy to each other. But most everyone understands close

proximity, gazing into each other’s eyes, touching, and all the other signals associ-

ated with the stereotyped immediacy cluster.

Time is an important limitation of much of the work on nonverbal behavior

associated with intimacy, affiliation, or liking. Mehrabian’s cluster of immediacy

signals is primarily limited to one-time encounters. Ongoing relationships express

different levels of intimacy over time, often indicating liking and disliking in quick

succession. Clore, Wiggins, and Itkin (1975a, 1975b) realized that the sequencing

of immediacy behaviors may have an important influence. They first collected a

large number of verbal statements describing nonverbal liking and disliking; these

behaviors were limited to a female’s actions toward a male. The large number of

behavioral descriptions was narrowed by asking people to rate the extent to which

the behavior accurately conveyed liking or disliking. Table 12-1 lists the behaviors

in order, rated highest and lowest. An actress then portrayed the narrowed list of

these behaviors in an interaction with a male, and the interaction was videotaped.

To no one’s surprise, viewers of the tape felt that warm behaviors would elicit

greater liking from the male addressee. The interesting aspect of the studies is

what happened when viewers were exposed to a combined tape in which the

actress’s behavior was initially warm but then turned cold, or when her behavior

was initially cold but then turned warm. The reactions to these videotapes were

compared with responses to videotapes showing totally warm or totally cold por-

trayals by the actress. Viewers thought the man on the videotape would be more

attracted to the woman who was cold at first and warm later than he would be to

the woman who was warm for the entire interaction. Further, people felt the

woman whose behavior turned from warm to cold was less attractive to the man

than the woman who was cold during the entire interaction. Why? It probably has

to do with the extent to which the judges felt the male had responsibility for the

female’s change in behavior.

Ironically, intimates in established romantic relationships may exhibit quantita-

tively less nonverbal behavior typically associated with affection and intimacy than

they did in forming the relationship. To establish these relationships usually means

CHAPTER 12 USING NONVERBAL BEHAVIOR IN DAILY INTERACTION 365

Copyright 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has

deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

a high frequency of hugs, kisses, handholding, and so forth; to maintain the rela-

tionship, though, it is often the quality of the act, not the frequency, that is impor-

tant. Perceived sincerity, magnitude of the expression, and perfect timing are

examples of qualitative factors. A hand held out to our significant other at just the

right moment after a fight may be the equivalent of 10 handholdings at an earlier

point in the relationship. The frequency of nonverbal acts of intimacy becomes

important in established relationships when it is necessary to offset a threat to the

relationship.

As close or intimate relationships develop, the nonverbal behavior we see is

likely to change. To communicate a wider range of emotional states, more facial

and vocal blends may occur. Sharply defined territories become more permeable.

Conventionally performed nonverbal acts gradually give way to performances

unique to friends or a couple. The increasing familiarity with auditory, visual, and

olfactory signals creates a condition for greater accuracy and efficiency in commu-

nicating; close female friends, for example, are better able to interpret each other’s

as opposed to a stranger’s low-intensity facial expressions of negative emotions

(Zhang & Parmley, 2011). More than acquaintances, intimates rely on a variety

of nonverbal signals to communicate the same message. Long-term intimates are

also subject to acquiring one another’s facial, postural, and gestural styles, making

them look more alike over time (Zajonc, Adelmann, Murphy, & Niedenthal,

1987). Intimacy brings with it exposure to more personal nonverbal acts and more

TABLE 12-1 BEHAVIORS RATED AS WARM AND COLD

Warm Behaviors Cold Behaviors

Looks into his eyes Gives a cold stare

Touches his hand Sneers

Moves toward him Gives a fake yawn

Smiles frequently Frowns

Works her eyes from his head to his toes Moves away from him

Has a happy face Looks at the ceiling

Smiles with mouth open Picks her teeth

Grins Shakes her head negatively

Sits directly facing him Cleans her fingernails

Nods head affirmatively Looks away

Puckers her lips Pouts

Licks her lips Chain smokes

Raises her eyebrows Cracks her fingers

Has eyes wide open Looks around the room

Uses expressive hand gestures while speaking Picks her hands

Gives fast glances Plays with her hair’s split ends

Stretches Smells her hair

American Psychological Association. Adapted with permission.

366 PART V COMMUNICATING IMPORTANT MESSAGES

Copyright 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has

deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

talk about them. We would also expect more overt evaluations—that is, approval

or disapproval of nonverbal behavior—among intimates than among acquaintances

(Knapp, 1983).

In the next section, we discuss how closeness or intimacy is created by the con-

tributions of both parties. Matching, or reciprocity, in established close relation-

ships has the potential to differ from reciprocity among strangers or

acquaintances. For example, people in established close relationships may not

reciprocate the same kind of behavior, only its equivalent. The extent to which the

behavior is equivalent to another is negotiated by the relationship partners. Thus,

almost any behavior can communicate intimacy in established relationships if the

partners to the relationship agree that it does. Intimates also may respond with

either compensation or reciprocity, but not in the same immediate time frame,

which is more likely with nonintimates.

MUTUAL INFLUENCE

Whatever nonverbal behavior is used to communicate liking or disliking is inevita-

bly the result of what both interactants do. This perspective prompted Argyle and

Dean to propose equilibrium theory in 1965, which maintains that interactants

seek an intimacy level comfortable for both of them. Eye gaze, proximity, smiling,

and topic intimacy, according to this theory, signal the degree of intimacy. If the

nonverbal behavior in one or more of these areas signals an increase or decrease

in intimacy, the other interactant compensates by engaging in behaviors necessary

to achieve equilibrium. For example, if a mere acquaintance looked at you too

much, stood too close, and talked to you about intimate topics, equilibrium theory

would predict that you would increase distance, look away, and try to change the

topic to something less intimate. Although some attempts to test this theory found

support for the predicted compensatory reactions, others found the opposite pat-

tern—reciprocating changes in intimacy rather than offsetting them. This finding

led to Patterson’s (1976) arousal-labeling model of interpersonal intimacy, which

maintained that gaze, touch, and proximity with another person creates arousal.

This arousal state is then labeled either positive or negative. If it is negative—for

example, dislike, embarrassment, or anxiety—the reaction will be to compensate

or offset the behavior. If the arousal state is considered positive, as in liking, relief,

or love, the reaction will be matching behavior or reciprocity. Although this theory

explained why we sometimes compensate for, and sometimes reciprocate, the behav-

ior of our partner, it requires time-consuming cognitive labeling of behavior. In many

encounters, these changes are too quick to involve this kind of mental processing.

This consideration prompted Cappella and Greene (1982) to posit a discrepancy-

arousal theory. This model suggests we all have expectations about other people’s

expressive behavior. Increases and decreases in involvement by one person that vio-

late the other person’s expectations will lead to arousal or cognitive activation. Mod-

erate arousal results from moderate discrepancies from what had been expected;

these are pleasurable, and reciprocity ensues. Large discrepancies from what had

been expected are highly arousing, leading to negative affective response and com-

pensation. Little or no discrepancy from expectations is not arousing, so we would

not expect to see any compensatory or reciprocal adjustments made.

CHAPTER 12 USING NONVERBAL BEHAVIOR IN DAILY INTERACTION 367

Copyright 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has

deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

Burgoon (1978) and her colleagues proposed and tested a model specifically

focused on one element of immediacy: proximity. Since then, this proximity model

of expectancy violation has also been used to study and predict involvement in gen-

eral (Burgoon & Hale, 1988; LePoire & Burgoon, 1994). This model is an impor-

tant contribution toward our understanding of reciprocal and compensatory

reactions, because it relies on both arousal and cognitive responses, and it expli-

cates the important role of how rewarding the communicator is perceived to be.

Burgoon’sexpectancy-violations model posits that we all develop expectations

for appropriate proximity in conversations: from our culture, from our personal

experiences, and from our knowledge of specific interactants. When our expecta-

tions for proxemic immediacy are met, arousal is not likely to play an important

role. When violations occur, too far or too close, arousal is heightened, which

directs our attention to the nature of the interpersonal relationship. Interpretations

then are made that guide our response. Interpretations vary, according to

Burgoon’swork,basedontheperceptionsofwhether the violator is rewarding. If

the person is rewarding—that is, if he or she has high credibility, high status, or offers

positive feedback—the violation of expectations will be perceived more positively

than for nonrewarding interactants.

In an elaboration of the expectancy-violations model, Burgoon, Stern, and

Dillman (1995) proposed interaction adaptation theory. This theory assumes that

each interactant enters into a conversation with requirements, expectations, and

desires. Requirements are what we deem absolutely necessary, like being close

enough to hear someone. Expectations are what we anticipate happening based on

the norms, the people involved, and the situation. Desires are our personal goals

and preferences for the interaction. This combination of what is believed to be

needed, anticipated, and preferred is called an interaction position, and it is used

as the standard against which our interaction partner’s behavior is judged. When

our interaction partner’s behavior is closely aligned with our interaction position,

this theory predicts reciprocity of behavior. Reciprocity is also expected when our

partner engages in major deviations that are more positive than our interaction

position. However, major deviations by our interaction partner that are more nega-

tive than our interaction position are likely to make us respond with compensatory

behavior. In one study, romantic partners tended to reciprocate both increases

and decreases in immediacy behaviors from their partners (Guerrero, Jones, &

Burgoon, 2000). Compensating behavior with romantic partners who manifest

decreases in immediacy is most likely when there is a strong desire to change or

neutralize the partner’s decreased intimacy. Otherwise, there seems to be a natural

pull to match it. Keep in mind that interaction is an ongoing, sometimes rapidly

changing, process. For example, we may be surprised by a close friend who

engages in more immediacy behavior than we anticipated or desired, and we may

initially respond with compensatory behavior. But in a split second, our friend

observes our reaction, and he or she begins acting more in line with our expecta-

tions, preferences, and desires. Then our behavior becomes more reciprocal.

What are we to make of these theories that try to predict when we reciprocate

our partner’s behavior and when we engage in compensatory behavior? Obviously,

a simple bottom-line statement cannot take into account the many subtleties and

variations associated with every human transaction, but as a general rule of

368 PART V COMMUNICATING IMPORTANT MESSAGES

Copyright 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has

deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

thumb, we would do well to remember the following: With strangers and acquain-

tances, we tend to reciprocate or match their nonverbal behavior when it is per-

ceived as generally congruent with our expectations and involvement preferences

for that person in that situation. We tend to compensate or offset the nonverbal

behavior of strangers and acquaintances when it is perceived as a major violation

of our expectations and preferences for that person in that situation.

COMMUNICATING DOMINANCE AND STATUS

Tired of feeling weak and unimportant? Want to unlock the secrets of those who

have gained authority and power? Want to know how to dominate friends, ene-

mies, and business associates, with a few simple tips?

Sorry, but we cannot tell you how to do that, even though we can understand

the motivation behind the questions. For one, you are likely to feel more unsatis-

fied with an interaction when you have less as opposed to more power than the

other person (Dunbar & Abra, 2010). You can always turn to popular books on

nonverbal behavior for help. Some tips from these books include the following:

Put the desk between you and the person you wish to dominate. Position yourself

physically higher than the other. Sit in a relaxed posture, preferably with your

hands behind your head. Take up as much space as possible. Be sparing with your

smiles. Press your palms firmly downward on the table in front of you. Do not use

speedy or jerky gestures, and keep your thumbs sticking out when you put your

hands in your jacket pockets. Shake hands so your hand is on top of the other per-

son’s hand. The list goes on. Although there could be a germ of truth to all of this,

as a general principle, you should be very skeptical of such glib advice. We can

summarize the research on dominance and nonverbal behavior for you, but there

are no pat answers. The desire for a simple how-to manual is great in this area,

yet the research is much too complex to allow it.

Even the basic concepts are complicated. The terms status,dominance, and

power are often used interchangeably, but many authors have noted their ambigui-

ties and have offered many, and sometimes contradictory, definitions (Burgoon &

Dunbar, 2006; Edinger & Patterson, 1983; Ellyson & Dovidio, 1985; Harper,

1985). Others have developed models in which some of these concepts, such as sta-

tus and dominance, are facets of another overarching interpersonal dimension, such

as power (Schmid Mast, 2010). Anyway, the concepts are certainly related, but not

perfectly: A figurehead leader has status without power, whereas a low-status

member of an organization may wield considerable influence by virtue of personal

contacts, shrewd insight, and social interaction skill.

A person’s status, which may be detected in his or her nonverbal behavior

(Kraus & Keltner, 2009; Shariff & Tracy, 2009), often connotes a socially valued

quality that people carry with them into different situations and interactions,

whereas power and dominance are more likely to be situationally defined. But

dominance can also be seen as a personality trait expressed in nonverbal cues

(Bente, Leuschner, Al Issa, & Blascovich, 2010), in addition to a situational state

in people. The tendency to be subordinate also has been viewed as a stable trait

linked to nonverbal behaviors associated with a lack of confidence and submissive-

ness in men (Sturman, 2011), although situational factors—such as being around

CHAPTER 12 USING NONVERBAL BEHAVIOR IN DAILY INTERACTION 369

Copyright 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has

deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

physically imposing males—might prompt the very same behaviors in men who are

customarily dominant around others in day-to-day life. Some researchers would say

that any kind of aggressive act is dominant, but for others a behavior is dominant

only if it is followed by clear evidence of submission from another individual.

In research, many operational definitions have been used to represent these

various concepts. The following are some illustrations of different contexts in

which dominance may be considered:

•Status: attire, occupation, education, military rank, socioeconomic status, role

•Primacy: initiation of contacts, children’s attempts to gain precedence in play,

giving orders, boasts, not submitting to others, controlling others’behaviors,

attacks

•Power: control of resources, expertise, experience, autonomy

Other issues complicate this discussion, and these must be considered before

going further. One issue is whether nonverbal behaviors used to try to attain domi-

nance or status may be different from those used by someone who has already

achieved this goal (Argyle, 1988; Heslin & Patterson, 1982). Thus, acquiring and

expressing dominance may not involve the same cues. Recognition of this possibil-

ity may help us sort out contradictory results. For example, research finds that

more gazing is perceived as dominant, and people with more dominant personal-

ities, people who initiate speech more in groups, and people who attain higher

status in groups are also less likely to be the first to break a mutual gaze in

face-to-face interaction (Dovidio & Ellyson, 1985; Kleinke, 1986; Lamb, 1981;

Rosa & Mazur, 1979; Snyder & Sutker, 1977; Thayer, 1969). Many authors have

noted that gaze can carry connotations of threat and coercion, and it is often

assumed that higher levels of gazing are a hallmark of a dominant, powerful, or

high-status individual.

We might think everything adds up—higher status people gaze more—until we

also read that people with dependent personalities tend to gaze more, and that

people made to feel dependent gaze longer at an experimenter (Kleinke, 1986;

Mehrabian, 1972b; Nevill, 1974; Thayer, 1969). Henley (1977) even proposed that

the reason why women gaze at others more than men do is because low-power people

feel the need to monitor others by gazing at them. These apparent contradictions

may be reconciled if we consider that a person of high status or dominance may

feel either secure or defensive, and a person of lower status or dominance may be

struggling to gain status or may be signaling to more powerful others that he or

she is no threat to that powerful other. Nonverbal behaviors such as gaze that peo-

ple use in these different psychologically states could differ radically. For example,

the person who feels out of control but is striving to gain control might engage in

high levels of gaze, whereas the person who accepts a low-status role might avert

his or her eyes so as not to appear threatening. Gaze, touch, and most other non-

verbal behaviors take their meanings in a complex way from the situation and

other co-occurring nonverbal behaviors.

Another important issue to consider is the difference between the impression

made by a particular nonverbal behavior and the actual behavior of people having

different degrees of dominance, power, or status. Here are two examples of why

this perceived-versus-actual distinction matters: A nonsmiling face is sometimes

370 PART V COMMUNICATING IMPORTANT MESSAGES

Copyright 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has

deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

perceived as dominant (Keating, 1985), and seeing someone touch another raises

the viewer’s perception of the toucher’s dominance (Major & Heslin, 1982). But

these findings do not necessarily mean that dominant or high-status people actually

smile less and touch more. The evidence is mixed for both, with no overall trends

either way (Hall, 1996; Hall, Coats, & Smith LeBeau, 2005; Hall & Friedman,

1999; Johnson, 1994).

In general, people have well-developed beliefs about how nonverbal behavior is

related to dominance, status, or power—all of which we shall refer to as domi-

nance. Carney, Hall, and Smith LeBeau (2005) asked college students to imagine

interactions among people with differing degrees of dominance, including those

with either more or less dominant personalities and those with either more or less

status in the workplace. The more dominant person was believed to engage in more

“invasive”behaviors, glare and gaze more, interrupt more, stand at a close distance,

touch the other more, touch themselves less, show emotions successfully, stand more

erect, and pay less attention to the other person, among many other perceived domi-

nance behaviors. Another way to examine people’s beliefs is to show them nonverbal

behavior—on videotape, for example—and ask them to rate how dominant the indi-

viduals seem to them. Many studies have done this, as reviewed by Hall, Coats, and

Smith LeBeau (2005). In general, the behaviors that are rated as more dominant con-

cur with those identified more explicitly in the Carney study.

However, for studies that related the expressors’actual degree of dominance to

their nonverbal behavior, many fewer relations were found on average (Hall,

Coats, & Smith LeBeau, 2005). High actual dominance was associated with more

facial expressiveness, more bodily openness, smaller interpersonal distances, better

posed expression skill, less vocal variability, louder voices, more interruptions,

fewer back-channel responses, fewer filled pauses, and a more relaxed-sounding

voice. At the same time, many other behaviors that are generally believed to be

related to dominance were not observed. Furthermore, studies vary greatly in how

nonverbal behavior is related to dominance and power, sometimes showing diamet-

rically opposite effects. This complex picture may have something to do with the

fact that high and low dominance can have many different emotions and motives

associated with it. Considering this, it may not make much sense to seek nonverbal

cues that are consistently correlated with a person’s dominance. For example, a

person low in dominance who is feeling hostile would smile a very different

amount from a low-dominant person who is feeling the need to please another per-

son. Also the nonverbal behaviors themselves can have ambiguous meanings, and

therefore, it is risky to label a particular behavior as being intrinsically, or always,

dominant or nondominant. For instance, although interrupting others in conversa-

tion can be a dominant behavior (Henley, 1977; Kollock, Blumstein, & Schwartz,

1985; Leffler, Gillespie, & Conaty, 1982; Robinson & Reis, 1989), one should

not take this interpretation for granted. Interruption is sometimes indicative of a

highly involved and participatory conversation and is not necessarily a sign of a

power struggle in progress (Dindia, 1987; Kennedy & Camden, 1983).

Another factor is that people’s expectations will influence how they interpret

dominance cues. In any encounter, a host of expectations is usually going to be

present, including role and gender expectations. Sometimes these expectations will

mesh well with each other; at other times, they will not. Schmid Mast, Hall,

CHAPTER 12 USING NONVERBAL BEHAVIOR IN DAILY INTERACTION 371

Copyright 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has

deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

Cronauer, and Cousin (2011) observed that similar nonverbal and verbal behaviors

were seen as indicators of more dominance in female physicians than in male phy-

sicians. Dominance-related behaviors that are in line with our role expectations of

physicians, such as talking more and speaking with a louder voice, might also be

more in line with our gender role expectations of men than women. Therefore,

observers might conclude that their presence is more diagnostic of high levels of

dominance in female physicians than in male physicians because such cues may be

not expected as much from females than males.

One behavior that has consistently been associated with dominance is the

visual dominance ratio (Ellyson, Dovidio, & Fehr, 1981; Exline, Ellyson, & Long,

1975). Experiments that defined status, power, and dominance in different ways

found that among white college students, the higher status person gazes roughly

the same percentage of the time while listening and speaking, whereas the lower

status person gazes relatively more while listening. When a male and a female inter-

act, and one is made to be the expert or is accorded higher status, that individual,

regardless of sex, will engage in the visual dominance pattern. Although subtle, the

visual dominance ratio does not go unnoticed. When subjects were asked to judge

the relative power or potency of individuals engaging in different amounts of eye

gaze, they gave higher ratings to individuals engaging in relatively more looking

while speaking than to those engaging in relatively more looking while listening.

How much a person talks when in a group is also a very consistent and rather

strong indicator of status or dominance, both in terms of observers’perceptions

and in terms of actual status or dominance (Schmid Mast, 2002). However, even

here there are exceptions. In an interview situation, the interviewee (lower power)

is likely to talk more than the interviewer (higher power). And in long-standing

groups, sometimes a person with well-established status or power can afford to sit

back and say very little, knowing that others will attend fully whenever he or she

chooses to speak.

Murphy, Driscoll, and Kelly (1999) connected nonverbal dominance to the

likelihood that college males would engage in sexual harassment. These authors

found that males who scored higher on a scale that had previously been shown to

predict sexual harassment engaged in several behaviors that people believe to be

related to dominance: more open body postures, more direct eye contact, and less

direct body orientation. However, nonverbal behaviors that might be construed as

sexual—smiling, head tilting, and flirtatious glances—were not predicted by the

scale, leading the authors to conclude that sexual harassment is more dominance

related than sexuality related.

The relations of nonverbal behavior to dominance have been helpfully summa-

rized by Burgoon and Dunbar (2006) in three major categories: effects of physical

potency and energy (size and strength, expressivity), resource control (command of

space, spatial precedence—who goes first), and interaction control (centrality, phys-

ical elevation, initiation, and nonreciprocation). Many findings from the literature,

including many more not mentioned here, fit within this framework. However, one

must remember that the relation of nonverbal communication to dominance is

complex and does not lend itself to simple, formulaic approaches. Perhaps this is

fortunate, in that it would be troubling if it were truly easy to dominate others

through nonverbal behavior.

372 PART V COMMUNICATING IMPORTANT MESSAGES

Copyright 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has

deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

MANAGING THE INTERACTION

Most of the time, we do not engage in much conscious thinking about how to greet

people, request a speaking turn, show our conversational partner we believe what

he or she was saying, or say good-bye. We do these things to structure the interac-

tion—to regulate the processes of coming together, the back-and-forth nature of

speaking and listening, and departure. As we note later, however, these acts are

also rich in content. When such acts are the subject of conscious reflection, we

appreciate the importance of the messages involved.

GREETING BEHAVIOR

Greetings perform a regulatory function by signaling the beginning of an interac-

tion. Greetings also do much more: They convey information about the relation-

ship, reduce uncertainties, signal ways to better know the other, and structure the

ensuing dialogue. Some greeting behavior follows certain conventions, like the

handshake, but greetings take many forms. This was not true, however, in

Germany in the 1930s, when the “Hitler salute”was imposed on the German people.

This form of greeting was designed to signal one thing above all else—the greeter’s

willingness to follow the Nazi party’s rules. It was the expected greeting in every-

day administrative, commercial, political, and social situations, and it was taught

to children at an early age (see Figure 12-3). The salute was a salute to Hitler,

so it played no role in establishing a connection between the interacting parties.

FIGURE 12-3

Children performing the Nazi salute.

Hulton Archive/Getty Images

CHAPTER 12 USING NONVERBAL BEHAVIOR IN DAILY INTERACTION 373

Copyright 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has

deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

Allert (2008) argues convincingly that it wounded the sociability and connectedness

among Germans of that era.

Without the imposition of any particular convention like the Hitler salute, ver-

bal and nonverbal behavior during greetings may signal status differences, such as

those between a subordinate and supervisor; degree of intimacy, as between

acquaintance and lover; or a current feeling or attitude, such as aversion or inter-

est. An emotionally charged greeting may reflect our desired involvement with the

other person, or it may reflect a long absence of contact. Goffman (1971) proposed

an “attenuation rule,”which states that the expansiveness of a greeting with a par-

ticular person will gradually subside with continual contact with that person, for

example, a coworker at an office. Kendon and Ferber (1973) found the following

six stages that characterized greetings initiated from a distance.

1. Sighting, orientation, and initiation of the approach. A greeting, like any other

transaction, requires participation by both interactants. Sometimes both will

agree that acknowledgment is enough. After mutual recognition, an immediate

and sustained withdrawal of attention occurs. Goffman (1963) called this

common action civil inattention. When the greeting continues, we move to

stage 2.

2. The distant salutation. This is the “official ratification”that a greeting

sequence has been initiated and who the participants are. A wave, smile, or

call may be used for recognition. Two types of head movements were noted at

this point: One, the head toss, is a fairly rapid back-and-forward tilting

motion. In the other, the person tended to lower the head, hold it for a while,

and then slowly raise it.

3. The head dip. Researchers have noted this movement in other contexts as a

marker for transitions between activities or shifts in psychological orientation.

Interestingly, this movement was not observed by Kendon and Ferber if the

greeter did not continue to approach his or her partner.

4. Approach. As the greeting parties continued to move toward each other, sev-

eral behaviors were observed. Gazing behavior probably helped signal that the

participants were cleared for talking. An aversion of this gaze was seen just

prior to the close salutation stage, however. Grooming behavior and one or

both arms moved in front of the body were also observed at this point.

5. Final approach. Participants at this stage are less than 10 feet from each other.

Mutual gazing, smiling, and a positioning of the head not seen in the sequence

thus far are now seen. The palms of the hands may also be turned toward the

other person.

6. Close salutation. As the participants negotiate a standing position, we hear the

more stereotyped, ritualistic verbalizations so characteristic of the greeting cer-

emony: “Hey, Steve! How ya doin’?”and so on. If the situation calls for body

contact—handshakes, embraces, and the like—these will occur at this time.

Even though the handshake is very common in the United States, this kind of

greeting behavior is not shared in some other cultures.

The specific nature of greetings varies according to the relationship of the com-

municators, the setting, and the attendant verbal behavior. Our major concern here

is with the nonverbal behavior. The greetings observed by Krivonos and Knapp

374 PART V COMMUNICATING IMPORTANT MESSAGES

Copyright 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has

deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

(1975) were frequently initiated by a vertical or sideways motion of the head

accompanied by eye gaze. Smiles, regardless of the degree of acquaintanceship,

were also common. Perhaps the smile serves the function of setting a positive,

friendly initial mood. Eye gaze signals that the communication channels are open

and that an obligation to communicate exists. Other eye-related greeting behaviors

included winks and the eyebrow flash (discussed in Chapter 2). The hands are

often active in the greeting process with salutes, waves, handshakes (Schiffrin,

1974), handslaps, and various emblematic gestures such as the peace sign, the

raised fist, or the thumbs-up gesture. Hands used in greetings have traditionally

been open, but in recent years, the “fist bump”has been used by some in the

United States. When fists lightly touch each other in greeting, the greeters are sig-

naling friendliness by showing that a potentially threatening gesture is being used

in a nonthreatening way. Hands also may be engaged in grooming, such as running

fingers through the hair. Touching may take the form of embraces, kisses, or hit-

ting on the hands or arm. The mouth may smile or assume an oval shape, suggest-

ing a possible readiness for talk.

TURN-TAKING BEHAVIOR

Conversations begin and are eventually terminated. Between these two points,

however, it is necessary to exchange speaking and listening roles, that is, to take

turns. Without much awareness of what we are doing, we use body movements,

vocalizations, and some verbal behavior that often seem to accomplish this turn-

taking with surprising efficiency. The act of smoothly exchanging speaking and lis-

tening turns is an extension of our discussion of interaction synchrony in Chapter 7.

And, because a number of the turn-taking cues are visual, it is understandable that

we might have a harder time synchronizing our exchanges during telephone and

intercom conversations.

Turn-taking behavior is not just an interesting curiosity of human behavior.

We seem to base important judgments about others on how the turns are allocated

and how smoothly exchanges are accomplished. Effective turn-taking may elicit the

perception that you and your partner really hit it off, or that your partner is a very

competent communicator; ineffective turn-taking may prompt evaluations of

“rude”(too many interruptions), “dominating”(not enough turn yielding), or

“frustrating”(the inability to discern turn-taking cues).

The turn-taking behaviors we are about to outline have generally been derived

from analyses of adult, white, and middle- and upper-class interactants. Some of

these behaviors and behavior sequences may not apply to other groups. Blacks,

for example, seem to gaze less than whites during interaction (Halberstadt, 1985).

Other groups may develop speaking patterns with more unfilled pauses, which

may communicate turn yielding to those unfamiliar with the group norm. Children

who are learning turn-taking rules engage in behaviors we rarely see in adults, such

as tugging at their parent’s clothing and hand raising to request a speaking turn.

Speakers and listeners negotiate behaviors associated with turn-taking, but

speakers typically take the most responsibility for signaling two turn-taking beha-

viors: turn yielding and turn maintaining. Listeners typically take the most respon-

sibility for two other types of turn-taking behaviors: turn requesting and turn

CHAPTER 12 USING NONVERBAL BEHAVIOR IN DAILY INTERACTION 375

Copyright 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has

deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

denying. The behaviors associated with these acts are derived from careful analyses

of both audio and visual elements enacted at junctures where interactants exchange

or maintain the speaking turn (Duncan, 1975; Duncan & Fiske, 1977; Wiemann &

Knapp, 1975; Wilson, Wiemann, & Zimmerman, 1984). Any individual behavior

associated with speaker or listener intentions will contribute toward a smooth turn

exchange, but the greater the number of signals, the greater the chances for a

smooth exchange. Note, however, that a familiarity with the rules of interaction is

also an important part of effective turn-taking. For example, before any specific

turn-taking behaviors are observed, most people enter conversations knowing that

speaking roles will generally alternate in an A-B-A-B sequence, and that when one

person finishes speaking, the other is generally obligated to take the conversational

“ball.”Cultures with different conversational rules and specialized systems of com-

munication, such as sign language, require somewhat different turn-exchange pro-

cesses, although congenitally blind and adventitiously blind communicators also

display a range of vocal and bodily behaviors associated with conversational turn-

taking (Magnusson, 2006).

TURN YIELDING To yield in conversation literally means you are giving up your turn

and you expect the other person to start talking. As noted in Chapter 7, the termi-

nation of one’sutterancecanbecommunicatedwithkinesicmarkers(seeFigure7-14)

that rise or fall with the speaker’s pitch level. Questions are clearly an indication

that a speaker is yielding his or her turn and expects the partner to respond. If it

is a rhetorical question the speaker plans to answer, we probably will see some

turn-maintaining cues, but if the listener is eager to get into the conversation, he or

she may attempt to answer even a rhetorical question. Vocally, we also can indicate

the end of our utterance by a decreased loudness, a slowed tempo, a drawl on the

last syllable, or an utterance trailer such as “you know,”“or something,”or “but,

uh.”Naturally, an extended, unfilled pause also is used to signal turn yielding.

More often than not, however, the silence becomes awkward, and the speaker adds

a trailer onto the utterance. Body movements that have been accompanying the

speech may also be terminated; for example, illustrative gestures come to rest, and

body tenseness becomes relaxed. Gazing at the other person will also help signal

the end of an utterance. If the listener does not perceive these yielding cues, and

gives no turn-denying cues, the speaker may try to convey more explicit cues, such

as touching the other, raising and holding the eyebrows in expectation, or saying

something like “Well?”

TURN MAINTAINING If, for some reason, the speaker does not want to yield a speak-

ing turn, we are likely to see several behaviors. Voice loudness probably will

increase as turn-requesting signals are perceived in the listener. Gestures probably

will not come to rest at the end of the verbal utterances, creating a gestural equiv-

alent to the filled pause. Filled pauses probably will increase while the frequency

and duration of silent pauses decrease. This minimizes the opportunities for the

other person to start speaking without interrupting or to start speaking simulta-

neously. Sometimes we see a light touching of the other person by the speaker,

which seems to say, “Hold on a little bit longer. I want to make a few more points

and then you can talk.”This touching is sometimes accompanied by a patting

376 PART V COMMUNICATING IMPORTANT MESSAGES

Copyright 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has

deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

motion, as if to soothe the impatient listener. In some respects, this touch has the

effect of the speaker putting his or her hand over the mouth of the would-be

speaker—an act not allowed in interpersonal etiquette in our society.

TURN REQUESTING When we do not have the floor and we want to talk, we may

exhibit one or more of several behaviors. An upraised index finger seems to sym-

bolize an instrument for creating a conversational hole in the speaker’s stream of

words, but it also approximates a familiar, formal turn-requesting signal learned

in school—a raised hand. Sometimes this upraised index finger is accompanied by

an audible inspiration of breath and a straightening and tightening of posture, sig-

naling the imminence of speech. In some cases, certain self-adaptors classified as

preening behavior also may signal preparation for a new role. The very act of

simultaneous talking—that is, an extended interruption—will convey your request

for a speaking turn, but to make sure that request is granted, you have to speak

louder than your partner, begin gesturing, and look away as if the turn were now

yours. When the speaker and listener are well synchronized, the listener will antici-

pate the speaker’s juncture for yielding and will prepare accordingly by getting the

rhythm before the other person has stopped talking, much like a musician tapping

his or her foot preceding a solo performance. If the requestor’s rhythm does not fit

the speaker’s rhythm, we might observe some stutter starts—for example, “I…

I…I was….”Sometimes the turn-requesting mechanism consists of efforts to

speed up the speaker, realizing that the sooner one speaker has his or her say, the

sooner the requestor will get his or hers. This same behavior was noted when peo-

ple were anxious to terminate a conversation (Knapp, Hart, Friedrich, & Shulman,

1973). The most common method for encouraging a speaker to finish quickly is

the use of rapid head nods, often accompanied by verbalizations of pseudo agree-

ment such as “yeah”and “mmm-hmm.”The requestor hopes the speaker will

perceive that these comments are being given much too often, and do not follow

ideas expressed logically enough, to be genuine signs of reinforcement.

TURN DENYING Sometimes we receive turn-yielding cues from the speaker, but we

do not want to talk. At such times, we probably maintain a relaxed listening

pose, maintain silence, or gaze intently at something in the surrounding environ-

ment. More often, we exhibit behavior that shows our continuing involvement in

the content of the speaker’s words but denies we are seeking a turn. This might

take the form of smiling, nodding, or shaking the head; completing a sentence

started by the speaker; briefly restating what the speaker just said; briefly request-

ing clarification of the speaker’s remarks; or showing approval by appropriately

placed “mmm-hmm’s,”“yeah’s,”or other noises such as the “clicking”sound

that suggests “You shouldn’t have said that.”

The preceding repertoire of turn-taking behaviors is accurate as far as it goes,

but it can be more complicated. As we noted earlier, the exchange of turns in con-

versation is a jointly negotiated process and not merely the display of one or more

signals associated with yielding, maintaining, requesting, or denying. Sometimes, it

is hard to tell who is playing the speaker role and who is playing the listener. For

example, before a listener displays any requesting behavior, a speaker may provide

signals that essentially project the completion of his or her turn, thereby

CHAPTER 12 USING NONVERBAL BEHAVIOR IN DAILY INTERACTION 377

Copyright 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has

deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

acknowledging a request before it has occurred. Sometimes a listener uses gestures

that simultaneously signal the desire for a turn, project the type of talk to ensue,

and avoid disrupting the speaker’s turn.

Many of the actions listeners perform during a speaker’s turn are called back-

channel responses or feedback (Duncan, 1974; Rosenfeld, 1987; Rosenfeld &

Hancks, 1980). These listener responses help regulate the flow of information and

signal the energy expended in the decoding process. Listener responses can affect

the type and amount of information given by the speaker, the length of his or her

turn, the clarity of the speaker’s content, and the extent to which the speaker com-

municates in a qualified or specific manner. At key points in the telling of a story, a

speaker will look into the face of his or her listener—an act that is likely to pro-

duce a back-channel response such as a nod or an “mmm-hmm”from the listener

(Bavelas, Coates, & Johnson, 2002). Back-channel responses by the listener nor-

mally occur at the juncture of phonemic clauses by the speaker. The primary non-

verbal signals are head nods, but postural changes, smiles, frowns, eyebrow flashes,

and laughter (Vettin & Todt, 2004) also occur. Common verbal and vocal back-

channel signals include saying “yeah,”“mmm-hmm,”repeating the speaker’s

words, asking a clarifying question, or completing a sentence for the speaker.

Sometimes the listener provides these signals prior to the phonemic clause juncture,

which may indicate he or she is “ahead”of the speaker. When such signals are

“late,”it is acknowledgment of what is being said but may also indicate a lack of

full understanding. Once again, though, back-channel cues only affect the speaker

if he or she is both motivated to attend to them and motivated to act on the feed-

back given.

LEAVE-TAKING BEHAVIOR

Having managed our way through the conversation thus far, it is now time to ter-

minate it. Leave taking seems to serve three valuable functions in daily interaction

(Knapp, Hart, Friedrich, & Shulman, 1973). The primary regulatory function is

signaling the end of the interaction; that is, immediate physical and/or vocal con-

tact soon will be terminated. Again, specific nonverbal manifestations of these func-

tions vary with the relationship between the communicators, preceding dialogue,

anticipated time of separation, body position—that is, whether the communicators

are standing or sitting—and other factors. Decreasing eye gaze and positioning

one’s body toward the nearest exit were the two most frequent nonverbal beha-

viors observed in this study, and these seem to adequately signal impending

absence. Leave-taking rituals may also summarize the substance of the discourse.

This is usually accomplished verbally, but a good-night kiss may sufficiently cap-

ture the evening’s pleasantries to qualify as a summarizer. Finally, departures tend

to signal supportiveness, which can offset any negativity that might arise from

encounter-termination signals, while simultaneously setting a positive mood for the

next encounter—that is, it sends the message: “Our conversation has ended, but

our relationship has not.”Nonverbal supportiveness may be found in a smile, a

handshake, touch, head nodding, and leaning forward. Because signaling support-

iveness seems so important, we often use the more direct verbal signals, for exam-

ple, “Thanks for your time. I’m glad we got a chance to talk.”

378 PART V COMMUNICATING IMPORTANT MESSAGES

Copyright 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has

deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

Head nodding and leaning forward, of course, serve several simultaneous func-

tions. Rapid head nodding toward the end of a conversation reinforces what the

speaker is saying, but it is a rather empty reinforcement, because it also signals a

desire to terminate the conversation. After all, if there is no apparent disagreement

or lack of understanding, the speaker will feel no need to expand on his or her

remarks. And although it is true that people accompany their feelings of liking by

sometimes leaning toward another person, it is also necessary to lean forward to

stand up in order to exit. So, like words, movements have multiple meanings and

serve several functions.

Other nonverbal leave-taking behaviors include looking at a watch; placing the

hands on the thighs for leverage in getting up, which also signals the other person

that such a “catapult”is imminent; gathering possessions together in an orderly

fashion; and accenting the departure ritual with nonvocal sounds, such as slapping

the thighs when rising, stomping the floor with the feet when rising, or tapping a

desk or wall with the knuckles or palm. Finally, researchers noticed that nearly all

the nonverbal variables studied tended to increase in frequency during the last min-

ute of interaction, with a peak during the 15 seconds just prior to standing. This

increasing activity in at least 10 body areas just prior to the termination of an

interaction may suggest why we are so frustrated when our partings “fail,”that is,

when our partner calls us back with “Oh, just one more thing .”It means

we have to go through the entire process of leave taking all over again.

COMMUNICATING OUR IDENTITY

The evening news shows a group of men entering a building. The narrator tells us

that a fugitive sought in several states has been apprehended by the FBI. But did we

need to be told? Even without the narrative, we can tell a great deal about the peo-

ple and what is going on. The bearing and demeanor of some of the men have

“federal agent”written all over them. They are likely to be large and burly and to

wear their hair conservatively short and keep their faces closely shaved; sunglasses

might be worn, and the attire is undistinguished but is likely to be a plain, dark

business suit. They do not smile—indeed, they look completely humorless, erect,

and controlling. How about behavior of the suspected criminal? That person’s pos-

ture is likely to be slumped, head bowed, the face wearing a dismal expression,

with eyes averted from the camera.

The point of this mental exercise is that appearance and behavior reveal signif-

icant information about people’s identities—who they are, or in many cases, who

they would like to be. Identity includes social attributes, personalities, and those

attitudes and roles people regard as self-defining. Thus, being a police officer is a

role likely to be deeply connected to a person’s self-definition, and portraying that

identity appropriately is likely to be important to the person who identifies with

that role. Being an arrested suspect is a more fleeting role but could be integral to

the self-concept in the case of a career criminal. Sometimes it is hard to tell when

behavior reflects transient emotions and roles or is reflecting a more enduring and

deeply felt identity.

People have a great need to convey their identities. In previous chapters, evi-

dence was presented showing how aspects of our identity (e.g., age, sexual

CHAPTER 12 USING NONVERBAL BEHAVIOR IN DAILY INTERACTION 379

Copyright 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has

deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

orientation, occupation, socioeconomic status, culture, personality, psychopathol-

ogy, and criminality) are evident in our dress, physical appearance, and nonverbal

behavior. The communication of identity is, in part, self-validating: We confirm

for ourselves who we are. We also show our identities for the benefit of others—

both those in our group, to build solidarity and to signal belonging, and those not

in our group, to emphasize that they are not one of us. Michael Argyle has sug-

gested that people want to know about others’social attributes partly to help

maintain the belief that the world is a predictable place. Clues to another’s identity

also help us decide how to act toward that person. But direct, concrete evidence of

others’identities is sometimes hard to come by, so people rely on cues and gestures

(Argyle, 1988). And these cues are beneficial, for we are surprisingly accurate at

judging important components of other people’s identities. In the case of social

class, for example, a person’s way of dressing tells a great deal, as do other accou-

trements such as pens, briefcases, hairstyles, makeup, and jewelry. Sometimes peo-

ple orchestrate these aspects of their material selves to present an improved version

of the self in the hope of winning acceptance or approval.

PERSONAL IDENTITY

The concept of identity can be construed at both the personal and social levels. Per-

sonal identity consists of a unique configuration of characteristics—personality,

attitudes, tastes, values, and features—that the individual perceives as personally

defining. Nonverbal styles of expression can also be so distinctive that they become

an aspect of identity. Davis and Dulicai (1992) provided an analysis of Adolf

Hitler’s movements and gestural mannerisms during public appearances. Some of

Hitler’s movements included finger wagging (the “scolding Dutch uncle”), forward

stabs, pounding, slicing, crushing fists, and snapping punches, all of which are per-

formed with extreme control and inward stress. Davis and Dulicai summarize the

uniqueness of Hitler’s movement style as follows:

Hitler’s movement is very difficult to imitate. In seminars with people who are sophis-

ticated about movement analysis and performance such as dancers and dance thera-

pists, most cannot even approximate the ways in which he controls the action …and

sustains such a violent intensity throughout a series of batons (pointing gestures).

Those who come close want to stop. It is tortured, painful, relentless, and unyielding

motion. To move this way is to be at war with one’s body and it is notable that, for all

of the aggression that Hitler’s oratory displays, it is this war with himself that stands

out. (p. 161)

Personality is one of the ways we define personal identity, and personality is fairly

consistent across situations and time. Aspects of personality may be associated

with various appearance-related cues or behavioral cues that are apparent to

others. We understand that some people are more susceptible to criminal behavior

than others. It has been theorized that the male sex hormone, androgens, may play

a role in criminality due to its effects on brain development (Ellis, 2003). Impor-

tantly, androgens affect physical development, too, leading to the possibility that

there may be appearance-related cues that suggest a high level of exposure to

androgens, and thus, a greater susceptibility to criminal, especially violent, conduct.

Indeed, Ellis, Das, and Buker (2008) found that self-reports of violent criminality

380 PART V COMMUNICATING IMPORTANT MESSAGES

Copyright 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has

deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

were related to more masculine mannerisms and bodily features, a deeper voice,

and more body hair among college-aged males and females. Nonverbal behaviors

also provide clues to aspects of a person’s personality. Stillman and Maner (2009),

for example, found that the eyebrow flashes and glances toward a male confederate

were valid cues of a woman’s sociosexual orientation (i.e., how much emotional

commitment she needs before engaging in sexual activity, from a little to a lot).

An important question is how beliefs about behavior-trait associations differ

from the actual associations. People may have beliefs that are not substantiated

when observational research is done. A useful way of conceptualizing this question

is the “lens model,”which we have mentioned in other chapters. As shown in

Figure 12-4, the lens model encompasses the relation of both perceived and actual

behavior to a criterion, such as a personality trait, as well as the relation between

the perceived and actual trait—that is, the degree to which observers can judge

which targets have the trait in question.

Table 12-2 summarizes the lens-model results of Gifford’s (1994) study of 60

undergraduates videotaped in conversation. Over 20 nonverbal behaviors were

coded from these tapes and then related to both the participants’self-descriptions

of personality and the impressions of personality made by observers who watched

the tapes with the sound turned off. Table 12-2 shows that for the trait

“ambitious-dominant,”there were associations between nonverbal behaviors and

the personality ratings made by observers. However, actual ambition-

dominance—that is, the self-ratings by those who appeared on the tapes—related

to fewer behaviors, only two of which appeared on the list of behaviors correlated

with observers’ratings. This suggests that observers, who were also college stu-

dents, had a correct naive theory as far as these two cues were concerned but held

misconceptions for all the others shown on the other side of the table; in other

words, they thought that the more ambitious-dominant people would display these

cues, but they were wrong. The observers did, however, extract enough information to

form a significantly accurate overall impression of the targets’ambition-dominance;

A

BC

Stimulus Quality 5

Stimulus Quality 4

Stimulus Quality 3

Stimulus Quality 2

Stimulus Quality 1

Personality

Judgment

Personality

FIGURE 12-4

A diagram of a judgment lens model of social perception.

CHAPTER 12 USING NONVERBAL BEHAVIOR IN DAILY INTERACTION 381

Copyright 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has

deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

possibly, they based their impression on additional cues that were not measured, as

well as the two they used correctly. Other lens-model studies relating a wide array of

nonverbal cues to perceived and actual personality traits have been done by Berry

and Hansen (2000), Borkenau and Liebler(1995),Lippa(1998),andMurphy,Hall,

and Colvin (2003).

Another characteristic central to our identity is our sense of how intelligent we

are. There can be no doubt that intelligence, and the perception thereof, is a thing

of abiding importance to people in modern society. All of us have at some point,

and perhaps often, worried about how we compare to others in intelligence and in

other characteristics that are related, or perceived to be related—SAT scores, col-

leges attended, and so on—and whether others will think we are as smart as we

would like them to. In daily life, we do a great deal of assessing others’intelligence

as well as projecting our own as we would like others to see it.

Murphy, Hall, and Colvin (2003) asked what cues people look for when judg-

ing others’intelligence and whether those cues are correct. When making intelli-

gence ratings based on 1-minute clips of conversational behavior, perceivers

associated many cues with higher intelligence, including having a pleasant speech

style, talking with the hands, sitting up straight, talking fast, looking at the other

person while speaking, and behaving in a responsive manner. However, only a

few of these were valid cues to higher intelligence, most notably looking more at

the other person while speaking.

SOCIAL IDENTITY

Race and gender are among the most salient aspects of social identity—that is, our

identification with social and cultural groups—so it is not surprising that research

has turned up nonverbal communication differences associated with these catego-

ries. It is, of course, an oversimplification to think of these categories as though

everyone in them behaves the same. Stereotypic thinking promotes many judgment

errors and undesirable behaviors. Obviously, a woman/man may express her/his

womanhood/manhood differently at home than at the office—let us hope they do.

Similarly, a minority student may have a different behavior style when with friends

TABLE 12-2 PERCEIVED AND ACTUAL CORRELATES OF AMBITION-DOMINANCE

Correlated with Perceived

Trait Only

Correlated with Both

Perceived Trait and

Actual Trait

Correlated with

Actual Trait Only

Head, trunk, and legs more

directly facing another

More gestures More leg lean

Head more tilted back Legs more extended Less object manipulation

Arms less wrapped

More self-touching

More headshaking

Source: Adapted from R. Gifford (1994), Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, p. 401.

382 PART V COMMUNICATING IMPORTANT MESSAGES

Copyright 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has

deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

of the same social group than in a classroom filled with students from the majority

group. Also remember that distinctions such as male or female and black or white

are often confounded with other distinctions, such as social class and status. Fur-

thermore, each individual has numerous social identities: a person might be a

woman and a Hispanic and a member of the middle class. Furthermore, each cate-

gory of social identity is often multidimensional and ambiguous. Many people can-

not easily describe the complexity of their racial, ethnic, and gender identities.

Thus, it can be unclear what identity factors explain a given nonverbal behavior.

At various places in this book, we have documented differences between the non-

verbal behavior of blacks and whites in the United States. Although such differences in

nonverbal behavior have not been studied extensively, there appear to be differences—

at least in the limited populations observed—in style of walking, interpersonal dis-

tance, orientation, gaze, and conversational regulators (Burgoon, Buller, & Woodall,

1989; Halberstadt, 1985; Johnson, 1972). It is important to note that some of the

findings may pertain only to subgroups and not to the larger group, and some findings

may change over time. For example, a distinctive walk that may be evident in urban

black teenagers is probably not the same walk that would characterize black school-

teachers or executives. Keeping this in mind, research suggests that among adults, the

distance maintained between interactants is typically greater, and the body orientation

less direct, among African Americans than among European Americans. As an inter-

esting contradiction to this pattern of reduced sensory involvement, studies have

found African Americans to touch more than European Americans do.

Some research suggests that African Americans gaze less than European

Americans during conversation and gaze especially little with authorities, whereas

among European Americans, gaze often increases with authorities. Erickson’s

(1979) analysis of films of conversations pointed to distinct African-American and

European-American norms for conversational turn-taking and signaling attention.

African-American speakers used less subtle and less frequent cues indicating that a

listener should give a “listener response,”a signal that the listener is paying atten-

tion. But, as listeners, African Americans employed listener responses that were

more subtle and likely to be missed by a speaker from outside that group. Erickson

suggested that these differences could lead to a situation in which a European-

American speaker concludes an African-American interactant is either not listening

or not understanding. The European American then repeats himself, which is

perceived as “talking down”by the African American. Although Erickson found

evidence that African-American subjects displayed bicultural competence, a kind of

nonverbal bilingualism, there remained differences in conversational behavior.

In mixed-racial interactions, each person may deliberatively or unwittingly

communicate his or her racial identity to the other. A person’s choice of clothes or

hairstyle may signal his or her identification with a particular racial group, whereas

his or her interpersonal distance to another may be done out of force of habit. Peo-

ple may use such cues to categorize others into a specific racial group. Their non-

verbal reactions to such categorizations may betray their attitude or unease

toward members of that racial group (Word, Zanna, & Cooper, 1974). Toosi,

Babbitt, Ambady, and Sommers (2012) examined over 40 years’worth of research

on same- and mixed-racial (generally black and white) interactions and found that

individuals tended to show more friendly nonverbal behavior toward each other

CHAPTER 12 USING NONVERBAL BEHAVIOR IN DAILY INTERACTION 383

Copyright 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has

deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

when they were interacting with a member of their own (versus a different) racial

group. The more negative-looking behaviors in cross-race interactions often have

ambiguous meaning, alternatively as reflections of bad feeling or as reflections of

uncertainty and anxiety. Fortunately, attitudes toward other racial groups can

improve via greater interracial contact, and thus signs of nonverbal unease or neg-

ativity have and hopefully will continue to decrease over time.

Gender differences in nonverbal behavior also reflect the different identities of

males and females, and nonverbal differences appear early in life. Gender roles are

collections of attitudes, behaviors, and traits deemed desirable for each sex. In our

society, the male gender role, in stereotype, is exemplified by autonomy, assertive-

ness, dominance, and task orientation; for women, gentleness, empathy, and inter-

personal orientation are stereotypical (Cross & Madson, 1997). To a great extent,

nonverbal differences correspond to these role prescriptions. It is clear even from

everyday observation that social displays of sexual identity and gender role have

special importance. Thus, we may want to show the world not only that we are

men or women but that we behave as men or women are expected to behave. We

discuss some of the findings from research next, and other differences have been

discussed earlier in the book. Compared to women, men:

•Have less skill in sending and receiving nonverbal, especially emotional, cues

•Are less likely to notice or to be influenced by people’s appearance and non-

verbal behavior

•Have less expressive faces and use fewer expressive gestures

•Smile and laugh less

•Look at others less

•Keep greater distances from others

The nature of gender differences in interpersonal touching has sparked much

debate. When it comes to same-gender touch, the evidence is rather clear that het-

erosexual men are particularly averse to touching other men, except in certain pre-

scribed settings such as team sports, both as part of the game and as expressions of

team spirit. Both self-reported and observational data indicate that same-gender

touching is avoided by men, at least in the United States, but is quite welcome by

women. One hypothesis for men’s avoidance is homophobic attitudes and the fear

that touching will be seen as homosexual. This might explain why they are less

likely to comply with the request of a man who has touched them (Dolinski,

2010). Moreover, research by Roese, Olson, Borenstein, Martin, and Shores

(1992) found that among men, those with the least stated liking for same-gender

touching had the highest scores on a homophobia scale with items such as “Homo-

sexuality is a sin and just plain wrong”and “Homosexual behavior disgusts me.”

In a second study, college students who were observed to engage in less same-

gender touching in a cafeteria had stronger homophobic attitudes when surveyed

by researchers, and this was found to be true for both men and women.

Studies on opposite-gender touching have been more widely debated (Henley,

1977; Stier & Hall, 1984), but there is some concurrence that when the individuals

are young adults, or the touch is with the hand, or the arm is put around the other

person, males do take the touching initiative. However, the woman is more likely

to touch the man than vice versa when the couple is in their 40s or older, when

384 PART V COMMUNICATING IMPORTANT MESSAGES

Copyright 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has

deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

the touch is either brief or involves linking arms or handholding (Hall & Veccia,

1990), and when the couple is married rather than dating (Guerrero & Andersen,

1994; Willis & Briggs, 1992).

Although exhaustive research over the life span has not been conducted, there

is reason to believe that nonverbal gender differences are especially pronounced in

adolescence and the college years, when gender roles are especially salient. For

example, the gender difference in smiling is not evident in young children (Dodd,

Russell, & Jenkins, 1999; Hall, 1984); it peaks in adolescence and decreases after

that, though never completely (LaFrance, Hecht, & Levy Paluck, 2003). Most non-

verbal gender differences have been investigated among college students observed

in a laboratory situation, but evidence abounds from more naturalistic settings as

well. For example, male physicians interacting with patients engage in less smiling,

nodding, and back-channeling (saying “mmm-hmm”) than female physicians do

(Hall, Irish, Roter, Ehrlich, & Miller, 1994).

The nonverbal behaviors that women engage in more than men suggest more

openness, sensitivity, and involvement. In some circumstances, these traits may work

to women’s disadvantage (Henley, 1977). Their smiling may make them appear

weak, “too nice,”or even insincere; their higher levels of gazing may connote depen-

dency; and their nonverbal style may not be distant or threatening enough to win

automatic respect in the professional world. However, if this is the case, we would

argue that the problem is with the stereotypic beliefs rather than with the behavior

per se. Furthermore, it could also be argued that it is only because of cultural blinders

that we tend to see men’s behavior as “normal”and women’s behavior as different or

in need of correction. Because most evidence suggests that the kinds of nonverbal skills

and behavior shown more by women are an asset in daily life, one could make the

case that men’s nonverbal behavior style and skills are a handicap in social relations.

Women’s greater emotional expressivity is consistent with the stereotype that

women are more emotional than men. However, several studies have found that

self-reports of the intensity of emotional experience do not differ when assessed

concurrently with the experience (Kring & Gordon, 1998), while studies that ask

about emotional intensity in general or retrospective terms find a consistent gender

difference in self-reported emotional intensity (Diener, Sandvik, & Larsen, 1985).

The latter difference may be biased by the influence of gender stereotypes on self-

ratings; alternatively, women may do more subsequent thinking and processing of

emotional experiences, which amplifies their intensity with the passage of time. At

any rate, although it is clear that women are more emotionally expressive than men,

it is not clear that they are also more emotional in terms of their inner experience.

Sometimes the claim is made that women are false in their nonverbal expres-

sions, for example, that their smiles are constant and insincere. An early study,

cited often, found that women tended to smile even when their words did not con-

tain congruently happy messages, but men’s smiles were more in accord with their

words (Bugental, Love, & Gianetto, 1971). Bugental called women’s behavior

perfidious. The label is derogatory, but if this pattern exists, it could certainly

have social impact. However, a subsequent study that tested this same hypothesis

found exactly the opposite pattern, with women being more consistent across

channels than men were (Halberstadt, Hayes, & Pike, 1988). Clearly, it is premature

to conclude that inconsistent displays are found mainly in women.

CHAPTER 12 USING NONVERBAL BEHAVIOR IN DAILY INTERACTION 385

Copyright 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has

deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

As with race and other group differences, male and female nonverbal differ-

ences are not large in absolute terms, and we should not overestimate the size of

these differences. Though some of them are large relative to other psychological

differences between the sexes, they are still of modest magnitude, and even the larg-

est nonverbal gender difference shows more similarity than difference between

males and females. Stated differently, a great deal of overlap exists in the male and

female repertoires. Nevertheless, there is a striking correspondence between peo-

ple’s beliefs about these differences and the actual magnitude of such differences

(Briton & Hall, 1995; Hall & Carter, 1999), which strongly suggests that people

can see these differences in daily life. Of course, societal beliefs can also translate

into self-fulfilling prophecies, such that men and women come to have the beha-

viors that others expect them to have (Zanna & Pack, 1975).

The gender differences are also not invariant. In fact, they vary considerably as a

function of setting and context, including the nature of the situation, the affective

tone of an interaction, other nonverbal behaviors, and the characteristics of the

other person involved (Aiello & Aiello, 1977; Hall & Halberstadt, 1986; LaFrance,

Hecht, & Levy Paluck, 2003; Putnam & McCallister, 1980). As examples of this

variation, the gender difference in gazing is much more evident when people are

within conversational distance of one another than when they are standing farther

apart. The tendency for women to smile more than men is greatest when they know

they are being observed, when they are interacting with others, when they are not

very familiar with the other people in the interaction, when the circumstances make

them feel more anxious, and when they are Caucasian. Finally, people act in the

most sex-stereotypic ways when with others of their own sex; in opposite-sex

encounters, males and females often accommodate to the other’s norms. So, for

example, gazing is highest between females, lowest between males, and intermediate

in male–female interaction (Hall, 1984; Vrugt & Kerkstra, 1984). The fact that non-

verbal gender differences vary with these contextual factors demonstrates that we

still have a great deal to learn about the origins of male and female behavior.

Interpretations of sex differences in gaze have concentrated on the competing

themes of affiliation and warmth versus dominance and power. Because nonverbal

cues do not typically have fixed meanings, this ambiguity is difficult to resolve.

Smiling and gazing, for example, can have multiple meanings. However, the

visual-dominance ratio described earlier in this chapter is less ambiguous than

some other nonverbal behaviors, and it has been linked to differences in status,

power, dominance, or expertise in a variety of studies, but to our knowledge no

one has suggested that it varies with the warmth or friendliness of the interaction.

Dovidio, Brown, Heltman, Ellyson, and Keating (1988) performed two experi-

ments involving mixed-gender pairs of interactants in which the relative status of

the interactants was experimentally manipulated. When a status difference was cre-

ated between the interactants, the party having the higher status—whether that

party was male or female—had a higher visual-dominance ratio, consistent with

research already described. However, when status was not manipulated, men

behaved in the visually dominant way that high-status communicators display, and

women showed the less visually dominant behavior typical of people in low-status

roles. This finding suggests a connection between dominance and gender differ-

ences in gazing patterns.

386 PART V COMMUNICATING IMPORTANT MESSAGES

Copyright 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has

deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

The well-established finding that women score higher on tests of judging the

meanings of nonverbal cues has also been theorized to stem from dominance and

status differences (Henley, 1977). In fact, little is known about why females are so

often better at decoding nonverbal cues, despite much debate and discussion (Hall,

1984; Henley, 1977; Noller, 1986). So far, little evidence exists for the dominance-

status interpretation (i.e., that women are more accurate because they are lower in

dominance-status; Hall, Coats, & Smith LeBeau, 2005; Hall, Halberstadt, &

O’Brien, 1997). Noller (1986), like most other social psychologists, believes that

females are socialized to be expert in various aspects of social interaction, including

knowing the general social rules governing interpersonal relations, the general dis-

play and decoding rules appropriate to various situations, and the more specific

rules governing the use of nonverbal cues in particular. It is society’s expectation

not only that females will be attuned to social interactions, but also that they will

be responsible for how social interactions proceed. These pressures and expecta-

tions could easily produce the skill differences documented in research.

Similarly, only very limited support exists for dominance-status interpretations

for gender differences in other nonverbal behaviors (J. A. Hall, 2006). Smiling, in

particular, has been hypothesized to vary with dominance and status, such that the

lower-power person smiles more, and it has been suggested that differences in dom-

inance and status can explain why women smile more than men. However,

research on smiling relative to dominance and status finds no overall connection

between the two (Hall, Coats, & Smith LeBeau, 2005). It is likely that the amount

of smiling shown by people with different degrees of dominance or status depends

on other factors, such as how pleasant, ingratiating, hostile, nervous, or preoccu-

pied they are, not on dominance and status per se.

DECEIVING OTHERS

One of the most common communicative outcomes we seek is to persuade or influ-

ence others. In previous chapters, we cited research aimed at identifying the contri-

butions of physical attraction, distance, eye gaze, touch, and vocal cues to

perceptions of authoritativeness (expertise) and character (trustworthiness)—the

two central factors in the persuasive process. But the area of influence that has cap-

tured the attention of the American public and university researchers the most in

recent years is the act of lying. Four major questions drive the research in this area:

1. What behaviors distinguish liars from truth tellers?

2. What cognitive and emotional processes are at work during acts of lying?

3. How accurate are we at detecting lies?

4. What conditions enhance our ability to detect lies?

Identifying behaviors exhibited by liars has, until recently, focused predominantly

on nonverbal signals. It was incorrectly assumed that liars could manipulate their

verbal behavior easily but could not or would not control their nonverbal behavior

to the same extent, thereby revealing they were lying. Ekman and Friesen (1969a)

believed it was more likely that clues to deception would be found in the area of

the feet and legs first, the hands next, and the face last. Because the face is more

likely to be controlled by the liar, Ekman and Friesen argued that facial clues

CHAPTER 12 USING NONVERBAL BEHAVIOR IN DAILY INTERACTION 387

Copyright 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has

deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

would be more difficult to detect. Ekman and Friesen (1975), however, indicated

several ways the face reveals deception, such as micromomentary expressions and

the timing and location of the expression. For example, smiles made when people

were trying to cover up negative feelings included traces of muscular actions associ-

ated with disgust, fear, contempt, or sadness (Ekman, Friesen, & O’Sullivan,

1988). Moreover, attempts to suppress particular facial movements, such as eye-

brow movements and smiles, are not entirely successful by those who are lying

(Hurley & Frank, 2011).

Attempts to develop a list of behaviors that distinguish liars from truth tellers

have always faced the problem that there are many types of lies—prepared or not,

short answer or extended narrative, interrogated or not—and many motivations

for lying, such as to protect oneself or someone else, to get out of an obligation or

promise, or to avoid conflict. For the lies that occur most in our daily interaction,

people report they are not serious, are largely unplanned, and do not make them

fearful of being caught (DePaulo, Kashy, Kirkendol, Wyer, & Epstein, 1996). In

addition, no behavior that occurs while lying is completely unique to lying (Buck,

1984; Zuckerman, DePaulo, & Rosenthal, 1981). Ekman (1992) put it this way:

“There is no sign of deceit itself—no gesture, facial expression, or muscle twitch

that in and of itself means that a person is lying”(p. 80). Still, attempts have been

made to examine the behavioral indicators of lying regardless of how lying was oper-

ationalized. A meta-analysis of 120 studies performed by DePaulo and colleagues

(2003) identified the following profile for liars when compared with truth tellers:

•Liars are less forthcoming. As a result, they are likely to manifest shorter

responses and less elaboration; they appear to be holding back, speak at a

slower rate, and have longer response latencies.

•Liars tell stories that seem less plausible and with fewer details. Thus, stories

by liars are likely to have more discrepancies and to be less engaging—that is,

they contain more word or phrase repetitions. They tend to be less direct; use

fewer self-references; are more uncertain and less fluent with more hesitations,

errors, and pauses; and tend to be presented in a less active manner with fewer

gestures.

•Liars make fewer spontaneous corrections while telling their stories and are

less likely to admit they cannot remember something.

•Liars make a more negative impression. Overall, they seem less cooperative,

make more negative statements, and use more words denoting anger and fear.

They are also more likely to use offensive language, to complain more and

smile less, and they seem more defensive.

•Liars are more tense. Their voices are likely to have a higher pitch, their pupils

are more likely to be dilated for a longer period of time, and they are more

likely to exhibit fidgeting.

In another meta-analysis, Hartwig and Bond (2011) applied the lens model to the

detection of deceit and found that people seem to be lying when “they sound uncertain

and appear indifferent and ambivalent”or “they provide implausible, illogical

accounts with few details, particularly few sensory details”(p. 654). Importantly,

they suggest that deceit is not betrayed in a single behavioral cue, but rather seems to

be tied to the global impressions people form when they are around liars.

388 PART V COMMUNICATING IMPORTANT MESSAGES

Copyright 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has

deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

One behavior many people expect of liars is a sharp decrease in eye gaze.

Although this behavior may occur with some liars in some situations, it has become

so stereotypically associated with lying in this culture that liars often consciously

seek to control it. Sometimes, of course, the ability to display a normal pattern of

gaze is deficient, and the liar ends up staring. And too much gazing signals that

something is wrong, just as too little gazing does.

Although it is difficult to find behaviors that always characterize liars, it is eas-

ier to identify behaviors associated with key underlying cognitive and emotional

processes that occur during lies (Knapp, Cody, & Reardon, 1987). The two most

commonly studied processes are arousal and cognitive difficulty. Nonpathological

liars who know they are telling a high-stakes lie, and who know there will be

important consequences if they are caught, are likely to experience one or both of

these states. Nonverbally, arousal is indicated by pupil dilation, blinking, speech

errors, and higher pitch. Verbally, we might see excessive responses—for example,

“Why do you always have to question me?!”—in response to a seemingly natural,

nonthreatening question. Curt replies, or extremes in language usage, are also seen.

Obviously, people experience arousal for reasons other than lying, but aroused

truth tellers and aroused liars do not seem to behave the same. Liars commonly

experience cognitive difficulty as well. This may be manifested in speech hesita-

tions, shorter responses, pupil dilation, speech errors, incongruous verbal and non-

verbal behavior, and a lack of specific references.

Two other processes typical of the high-stakes lie involve attempted control

and the display of an affective state. Less spontaneous, or what seems to be

rehearsed behavior, would indicate attempted control. In 1991, military prisoners

of war who were forced to make anti-U.S. statements on Iraqi television were

reportedly trained prior to their capture to speak and behave in a wooden and

mechanical manner to indicate they were lying. Indirect responses to direct ques-

tions also may signal an attempt to control one’s behavior. The expected affective

state is one of anxiety commonly reflected in fidgeting, stammering, and the like.

But other emotional states are also relevant to deception. Anger is very common

and is reflected in liars’tendencies to be negative and disaffiliative in their

responses. Some liars feel enough guilt that looking away for long periods or cover-

ing their eyes with their hands is not uncommon. “Duping delight,”the pleasure

one may experience in deceiving another, occurs sometimes as well and may be

reflected in a smile at the wrong time or a sneer of contempt.

Given what we have said about the nature of liar behavior, it should be no sur-

prise that without the aid of any mechanical equipment such as a polygraph, peo-

ple are only about 50 to 60 percent accurate in identifying whether strangers are

lying to them or not. Since accuracy judgments usually combine the accuracy of

people judging truthful and deceptive speakers, and since truthful speakers are usu-

ally judged with a much higher degree of accuracy, our ability to detect liars may

be well below 50 percent (Levine, Park, & McCornack, 1999). Most studies asses-

sing accuracy are based on observer judgments, not on the observations of those

who are actually participating in the conversation. Some evidence suggests that

participants are less accurate than observers.

Enhancing our ability to detect deceit is not a simple matter of developing a

guidebook of nonverbal cues to lying. We have to think about the person who is

CHAPTER 12 USING NONVERBAL BEHAVIOR IN DAILY INTERACTION 389

Copyright 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has

deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

doing the lying, the nature of the lie, the characteristic of the person who is being lied

to, and the information available to or used by the person trying to detect deceit.

1. You should recognize that some people are better liars than others (Vrij,

Granhag, & Porter, 2010). If an individual has a long history of lying, he or

she might be well practiced in executing a lie even under the most trying of

circumstances, such as an interrogation.

2. You no doubt understand that lies run the gamut from innocent white lies

(e.g., “No, those pants don’t make your butt look big”) to life-threatening

ones (e.g., a businessperson who, in the interest of profit, deliberately conceals

his or her company’s practice of dumping a dangerous chemical into the water

supply from a fact-finding panel). DePaulo, Kirkendol, Tang, and O’Brien

(1988) believe liars are more likely to reveal themselves nonverbally when the

lie is very important to them. They called this the motivational impairment

hypothesis. Burgoon and Floyd (2000), however, found that liars who were

highly motivated to lie often performed it more skillfully and were less apt to

be uncovered through their nonverbal behavior. Lastly, Warren, Schertler, and

Bull (2009) suggest that people may not be able to conceal emotionally arous-

ing information from others as well as nonemotionally arousing information.

3. Although there is evidence that some people, such as police interrogators, may

overestimate their lie-detection skills (Elaad, 2009), some people are indeed better

lie detectors, including professionals who are highly motivated to detect deception

and reputed to be good detectors (Ekman, O’Sullivan, & Frank, 1999), people

with aphasia who have poor language skills (specifically, when the detection

process involves judging emotion) (Etcoff, Ekman, Magee, & Frank, 2000),

people with a high need for cognition (i.e., they enjoy tasks requiring more

thinking) (Reinhard, 2010), and people who focus on vocal cues as a good source

of information about deception (Anderson, DePaulo, Ansfield, Tickle, & Green,

1999; Zuckerman, Spiegel, DePaulo, & Rosenthal, 1982). Lastly, people who

have received feedback during training and practice may get somewhat better

at detecting deception (deTurck, 1991; deTurck, Feeley, & Roman, 1997).

4. Analyzing both verbal and nonverbal signals may be more likely to reveal a

liar than observing either type of signal alone (Vrij, Edward, Roberts, & Bull,

2000). And it may be that decoders need a sufficient amount of time seeing

these cues in order to make more accurate judgments of truthfulness (Masip,

Garrido, & Herrero, 2009).

Recently, attention has shifted to thinking about ways of making nonverbal

cues to deception more apparent to observers. This direction makes sense for two

reasons: Cues to deception are not that strong in the first place and, as we men-

tioned earlier, lying appears to be more cognitively demanding (for most people)

than telling the truth (Hartwig & Bond, 2011; Vrij, Granhag, Mann, & Leal,

2011). Thus, additional cognitive demands could deplete the already more taxed

cognitive resources of liars, leading them to have less control over possible diagnos-

tic cues to their deception. As evidence of this, Vrij, Mann, Leal, and Fischer

(2010) found that more cues to deception were available in liars when they were

instructed to maintain eye contact with the person they were lying to (an additional

cognitive demand), and that this enabled observers to better identify them as liars.

390 PART V COMMUNICATING IMPORTANT MESSAGES

Copyright 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has

deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

With all this attention given to our ability to observe liar behavior, it should be

noted that this is not the way most people find out they have been lied to. Instead,

they receive information about the lie from others, they find physical evidence

related to the deception, or the liar confesses (Park, Levine, McCornack, Morrison, &

Ferrara, 2002).

Although some may bemoan the fact that our detection rate is not higher,

others believe it would be undesirable to get too accurate at detecting lies. The abil-

ity to withhold information and mislead, it is argued, is just as crucial to the well-

being of our society as disclosure, openness, and honesty (Knapp, 2008). This point

was taken to comic extreme in the movie, The Invention of Lying. The main char-

acter, played by Ricky Gervais, lives in a world in which people do not withhold

their thoughts and feelings, no matter how rude or crude they may be. Once he dis-

covers how to lie, he is able to dupe others because they assume everything he says

must be true. Although never realizing that others can lie to you would be detri-

mental, always being suspicious of others would not be much better. The TV pro-

gram, Lie to Me, plays upon the notion that nonverbal behavior is the key to

catching liars. However, in a study by Levine, Serota, and Shulman (2010), those

who watched the program were subsequently worse at detecting deceit or more

likely to think that someone who was telling the truth was being deceitful, suggest-

ing that their suspicion of others had been unnecessarily aroused by the program.

Are machines any better than human beings at detecting lies? Polygraphs,

which measure various physiological indicators, such as heart rate and blood pres-

sure, are sometimes reported to detect liars with more accuracy than most human

observers. But because they too often identify truth tellers and liars incorrectly,

they are barred as courtroom evidence in most states (Robinson, 1996; Vrij,

2000). Furthermore, polygraphs can be beaten. In one study, people whose lies

were detected at about 80 percent were given either biofeedback or relaxation

training. After they were better able to control their bodily responses, the accuracy

of the polygraphs was reduced to about 20 percent (Corcoran, Lewis, & Garver,

1978). In addition to polygraphs, many products on the market claim to measure

vocal microtremors. Like the polygraph, these devices are based on the assumption

that liars experience anxiety, and behaviors associated with anxiety will identify

them. According to Hollien (1990), these voice-stress analyzers accurately identify

liars at slightly above chance—that is, not any better than most human beings could

do on their own. A device that measures brain wave responses to crime-relevant

words or pictures presented on a computer screen, called brain fingerprinting, claims

to have been 100 percent accurate in identifying liars in 120 tests (Farwell &

Dochin, 1991; Farwell & Smith, 2001), but other researchers find the procedure to

be about half as accurate and that training can help liars reduce accuracy even

further (Feder, 2001; Rosenfeld, Soskins, Bosh, & Ryan, 2004). Currently, scientists

are using functional magnetic resonance imaging in an effort to identify brain activity

that would distinguish liars from truth tellers (Kozel et al., 2009; Monteleone et al.,

2009), but this process also faces serious theoretical, procedural, ethical, and

accuracy problems.

What about people in close relationships? Should they not be more accurate at

detecting lies? Because trust is the fundamental reason couples have close relation-

ships, either party is likely to get away with lying quite easily at first. But once

CHAPTER 12 USING NONVERBAL BEHAVIOR IN DAILY INTERACTION 391

Copyright 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has

deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

suspicion is aroused, those who know a person’s behavior well are likely to be the best

detectors (Comadena, 1982; McCornack & Parks, 1986). However, it is not uncom-

mon for people in close relationships not to engage in the sort of monitoring necessary

to detect deception. They may not want to confront the lie, or they may be afraid of

destroying intimacy if they show distrust by their close monitoring (Knapp, 2006).

A PERSPECTIVE FOR COMMUNICATORS

Throughout this chapter, we have emphasized the idea that communicators mutu-

ally construct their reality. One person’s behavior can only be understood as

we see how it interacts with the behavior of another person. In the abstract, this

POLICING YOUR FEELINGS AROUND COPS

Sooner or later, we all get pulled over by a police officer. A

sudden surge of anxiety generally accompanies the experience

of flashing lights and sirens that direct you to pull over and

bring your vehicle to a stop. You might know that your lead

foot is responsible for your predicament. However, you might

be genuinely puzzled as to what you did or did not do that

drew the attention of the man or woman in blue.

Next, after you get your license and registration out, you

roll down your window and sit there and wait.

You wonder what is going on. Your anxiety level does not

ease up.

Soon the police officer gets out, approaches your vehicle

with an expressionless face, and then says firmly, “license and

registration.”You hand over each with a shaky hand. The offi-

cer then says, “Do you know why I pulled you over?”“No,”

you reply in a shaky voice.

The thought, “The cop must think I’m lying or up to no

good because I’m so nervous,”might run through your mind.

You try controlling your anxiety, but it does not work. You

still feel anxious.

For their own protection, police officers are trained to use

their nonverbal behavior to communicate that they are in control and in charge of a situation. These nonverbal

cues of dominance as well as the police uniform—asymbolofauthority—can be anxiety provoking to you.

Police officers are also trained to read your nonverbal behavior. Ironically, seeing some anxiety from you

might be comforting to them because it suggests that getting pulled over is not a common experience for

you. Thus, you do not need to keep your anxiety in check.

Police officers will, of course, use your anxiety level as a possible clue to trouble if it seems dispropor-

tionate to the situation. For example, your anxiety level does not drop when he or she tells you that you

are just getting a warning because one of your taillights is out. However, even that nonverbal cue would

not be used in isolation. Other cues—nonverbal and verbal—would be assessed to see if further questioning

of you is warranted.

Jupiterimages/Photos.com

392 PART V COMMUNICATING IMPORTANT MESSAGES

Copyright 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has

deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

proposition seems reasonable—one that would not be hard to memorize and recall

for a test. But what does the concept of mutual influence mean in practical applica-

tion to our everyday lives? Two things seem to be particularly important: First, if

the outcome of any transaction is the product of behavior by both interactants, it

means we must be very careful in judging and ascribing meaning to the nonver-

bal behavior of a single person or in generalizing a person’sbehaviorwithone

person to all others. This does not suggest that people do not have a style of

communicating they may carry from one encounter to another. The parts of

that style that are emphasized and deemphasized, however, can change dramati-

cally depending on whom one is interacting with. Second, if the outcome of any

transaction is the product of behavior by both interactants, each must share the

responsibility for the outcome. This does not mean that in some encounters one

person may not take or deserve more of the responsibility than the other. It

does mean that we should, perhaps more than we would like to, examine our

own verbal and nonverbal behavior to determine how it contributed to the inter-

personal outcome. In social life, it is rare indeed for one person to be doing

everything right and the other to be doing everything wrong. Unpleasant out-

comes are usually constructed mutually.

These notions return us to the expectancy effects described in Chapters 1 and 8.

The most important lessons about social life probably are these: We see what we

expect to see, and what we expect of others will likely come true. Through our

verbal and nonverbal behavior, we unconsciously shape other people into confor-

mance with our expectations, in all areas of life, including educational settings

(Harris & Rosenthal, 1985), psychological experiments (Rosenthal, 1976), and

ordinary interpersonal relationships (Snyder, Tanke, & Berscheid, 1977; Spitz,

1997). Thus, your nonverbal behavior does make a difference.

SUMMARY

Every day we have to accomplish goals that

require the effective management and reading of

nonverbal signals. This chapter identified what

we know about five of those goals.

We began by discussing the various ways we

manifest our liking and disliking for others. Even

though certain nonverbal signals have been asso-

ciated with courtship and romantic flirtation, we

also know that similar behaviors occur when

people are trying to communicate friendliness,

interest, and playfulness. These quasi-courtship

behaviors can lead to misunderstandings, and

they remind us how important context is for inter-

preting nonverbal signals. The cluster of nonverbal

behavior comprising immediacy or liking behavior

can be usefully applied to a variety of situations

in which we want to signal positive responses to

strangers and acquaintances. Immediacy occurs in

established close relationships, too, but mainly

when it is important to be clear about one’sfeelings,

when the relationship is threatened, or when a cou-

ple wants to communicate their closeness to outsi-

ders. Otherwise, people in close relationships

employ a more unique and varied nonverbal reper-

toire. We concluded this section by noting the ways

people adjust the intimacy level through reciprocal

or compensatory behavior.

Nonverbal behavior is also highlighted in acts

of dominance and efforts to show status. Like

intimacy, sometimes people will manifest differ-

ent nonverbal behavior when seeking dominance/

status than after they have achieved it. But, again,

context and individual differences are important.

An aspiring executive may engage in more eye

gaze while seeking the top position in the com-

pany, but another executive, equally motivated,

CHAPTER 12 USING NONVERBAL BEHAVIOR IN DAILY INTERACTION 393

Copyright 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has

deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

may engage in far less eye gaze with his or her

superiors as a sign of respect. There are a number

of behaviors that have been associated with dom-

inance and status. Some research indicates that

higher status men and women tend to manifest

a higher visual-dominance ratio, the tendency to

look more while speaking than listening.

Nonverbal signals are also crucial in initiating,

managing, and terminating everyday conversa-

tions. Smooth turn exchanges are negotiated

when speakers signal turn-yielding cues and lis-

teners signal turn-requesting cues. There are

times, however, when listeners do not want to

assume the speaking turn, and speakers do not

want to give it up. These, too, are highly depen-

dent on the manifestation of certain nonverbal

signals.

We tell others and ourselves who we are when

we communicate our identity through nonverbal

signals. Identity may be personal, such as with

individual personality, or it may be social, as in

race or gender. Research has found important

differences in the nonverbal behavior of men

and women, for example, but often these differ-

ences are not large.

Even though we would not like to think of

ourselves as deceivers, research indicates we

often use deception to manage our social sphere.

There is no behavior that is always associated

with lying, but research shows that liars tend to

be less forthcoming, provide fewer details, give

off a negative impression, exhibit more tenseness,

and make fewer spontaneous corrections in their

speech. Arousal and cognitive difficulty often

trigger the observed behaviors seen in high-

stakes lying, but most of us are not very accurate,

with only about a 50 to 60 percent success rate,

in identifying liars whom we do not know.

QUESTIONS FOR DISCUSSION

1. Research tells us that men typically smile,

laugh, and gaze at their conversational part-

ners far less than women do. Speculate on

why this is and the extent to which it is func-

tional or dysfunctional behavior.

2. What does it mean to collaborate in a lie?

Are collaborators and liars subject to similar

ethical standards?

3. Identify situations in which controlling behav-

ior is likely to be reciprocated, and when it is

likely to elicit compensatory behavior. Why?

4. Try to imagine a social world in which lies

could be detected accurately 99 percent of

the time. Describe it.

5. Describe how you nonverbally communicate

your romantic involvement with someone

when you are in public together. How has

the presence of a potential rival influenced

this, especially when the rival began flirting

with your significant other?

394 PART V COMMUNICATING IMPORTANT MESSAGES

Copyright 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has

deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.